There is another way. That is not to "admit defeat" but to recognize "victory." The victory is that of achieving an outcome (achieved, by the way, by the beginning of 2004, when Saddam Hussein had been captured, his two sons killed, the game of Fifty-Two Pick-Up with the previous regime's leading figures successfully concluded, and the country already scoured for the most dangerous kind of weaponry) that leaves the Camp of Islam more divided, and consequently demoralized, than it was before the sectarian and ethnic fissures, always present, were now free, without the iron despotism of Saddam Hussein to crush Kurds and Shi'a Arabs, to express themselves.
Call it a "defeat" if you must. I'd call it a "victory" -- one that will become apparent not at once, but within a few months of an American (and British) withdrawal. Let others prate about the loss. Let the Islamic websites be filled with declarations of victory and ululations of triumph, and hysterical predictions. It won't work out that way. It can't.
It will not be all-out chaos (though all-out chaos in Iraq does much more damage to the Camp of Islam than to the Camp of Infidels). Most likely the Shi'a will revive, with a vengeance, their militias, and inflict on Sunnis within reach -- those still left in Baghdad (they are down to 15% of the population of that city), revenge for whatever Al-Qaeda and its fellow-travellers inflict. In Anbar Province, the Shi'a will not enter, and those remaining will be attacked and flee to Baghdad. Kirkuk may well explode, as Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomans fight. In the south, in Basra and in smaller cities, the Shi'a will besiege the Sunnis, especially without the British or Americans anywhere around to hold them back. There will be a movement, a population shift, within Iraq akin to that which took place during the time of Partition in India.
The Sunnis will not be able to re-take or repopulate Baghdad. The Shi'a will be unable to, and will not wish to try, to take the Sunni-populated areas outside of Baghdad in Anbar and Diyala provinces. But no masses of troops. Just the bomb here, the bomb there, and the Shi'a militias doing whatever it is they do, and were doing more of before, to bring home to the Sunnis that they will pay for whatever harm comes to the Shi'a, by Al-Qaeda and other Sunni groups. As for the development that the American generals put such excited store by, the open warfare between some (not all) of the Sunni tribes in Anbar Province and al-Qaeda, that may continue, or may not. But it hardly matters very much. Those Sunni tribes are not a whit more willing to acquiesce in their new, inferior status than they were before, and their fight with Al-Qaeda is prompted not in the main by some ideology that makes them more accommodating with the Shi'a (or less hostile to the Infidel Americans) but of the tribal desire for revenge against Al-Qaeda, which has tried to enforce its writ, and to do so keeps killing tribal leaders.
It won't be a catastrophe for the Western world. It will be good for the Western world.
That isn't a "defeat." If General Sir Michael Rose wishes to accept the stated aims, the "mission" of Bush and Blair, then it would be a "defeat" because those aims will not (and can not) be attained. But seen in a more intelligent light, the withdrawal will inexorably lead to a weakening of the Camp of Islam.
"Victory Stands Shining Before Us."
