The US media is obediently casting this whole Iraq discussion in Kagan's framing of "victory is still possible."

The focus belongs elsewhere.

I doubt the discussions at AEI or the Pentagon or the White House stick to Kagan's frame, or consider it at all except as a bullshit cover story to feed to the public. Remember, invading Iraq was always part of a larger Master Plan, not an end in itself.

I think every discussion of our illegal war of aggression, within these high government circles, starts with Goal One -- make America the Middle East policeman and regional power broker.

And it continues by asking who -- oh, who? -- is in that catbird seat that we want all for ourselves? Why, Iran and Syria are. Reducing their influence while sticking to our bases and Emerald City in Iraq is what the high policy people discuss these days, not just Iraq.

There are two ways to reduce Iranian and Syrian influence in the region -- regime change through intrigue, or bombing them back into shattered states ripe for regime change through force.

Regime change, of course, is political speak for "establishing puppet governments capable of signing long-term oil contracts with American extractors."

That's why we want more troops "surging" into Baghdad -- to hold onto the place during the shitstorm that comes down when Israel and America go after Iran and Syria.

From the perspective of the Washington masters of war, America has to do it or die. America has to dominate some of the oil-bearing regions around this world of ours, or become a has been nation, drowning in debt, and flooded with worthless dollars.

So they'll cook up whatever reasons they must feed the public in order for America to go dominate some foreign oil. A war on a noun (terror) was just the beginning. These people are good with words; they'll make it sound convincing, whatever it is.

Iraq is just one nation on their list. The discussion sin Washington are about the next nation, and the next. Not just Iraq.