George Bush on Victory

My fault - apparently victory has been defined! Check it out (this is rich):

From 2005 (National Strategy for Victory)

• Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
  • Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
  • Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
  • Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

• Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
  • Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
  • The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.

• Failure is Not an Option
  • Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
  • Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
  • The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.

My comments are:

1) How vague!
2) In the long term, everything is perfect!
3) Failure is not an option - but it is a possibility! Obviously you can't plan to fail, but you can plan what to do if you are not successful!
4) Iraq is not the central focal point in the war on terror. Not even close. Not even close to being close.
5) Does anyone think that if we win in Iraq, that terrorism will just stop, or even come close? Apparently Karl Rove does:

success in Iraq will deal (terrorists) a decisive and crippling blow

Seriously?

Do we perhaps need a new definition of victory, because none of these things are meaurable at all. Can we just call up the national terrorist council and ask them how they are doing on a scale of one to ten? Is there a 'sectarian violence index' we can look up?

I think that our leadership is responsible for a much more quantifiable measure of success in these endeavors. If we can hold children and public schools to very stringent measures of success versus failure, shoudn't we do the same with our military and foreign policy?