John McCain did during the most recent Petreus testimony, give a forthright explanation of success in Iraq. He defined success in Iraq and so we know exactly when he thinks our troops can come home and stop being casualties in Iraq.
Success – the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists – this success is within reach.
Well, we could quibble about the definition of prosperous or democratic, but I would think the U.S.A. can lay claim to those goals. But if the U.S.A. was plopped into the Middle East right now, would it pass the test that it poses no threat to its neighbors?
Especially after McCains own speaking on the matter, and after ongoing comments from Cheney, Bush and Patreus, wouldn't it be logical to say that the U.S.A. is a threat to Iran?
So if the U.S.A. was swapped in for Iraq, McCain STILL wouldn't declare success, and STILL wouldn't let the troops come home.
All John McCain wants if for Iraq to be BETTER than the U.S.A. and then he'll bring the troops home. BETTER than the U.S.A., is that too much to ask?