When a Bush General says a Bush Plan is working, it can only lead to the response, "Gor' Blimey, Guv, who'd 'a thunk it?"
But when the unsubtle underlining motif of this response is that the US should start getting out as soon as possible, after already having achieved victory you understand, it's quite clear that the Pentagon, despite spending perhaps over a trillion dollars, has lost and has thrown in the towel.
There's only a few ways you can take over a country against a hostile populace. (1) Take over an already existing control structure established over a long period of time, often via the other two policies to be described, (2) Exterminate one major group to placate other previously hostile groups, (3) Decimate the entire population to cow them into submission.
So let's see how the Washington DC Imperiocrats could have really 'won' in Iraq:
(1) From a purely empire-building point of view, the Americans could have followed the lessons of the British Empire when it took over India by taking over the previous Mogul power structure. But I suppose in simply taking over the Ba'athist Party and changing a few names at the top, the American government would have looked a teensy-weensy bit cynical, even for Fox News.
(2) They could've followed the Roman Imperial model when taking over Britain, and wiping out a few tribes to placate other pro-Roman tribes, or indeed wiping out the entire Druidic cult in Anglesey, down to the last man, to placate those who had been in thrall to the Druids. But organising lines of Marines to walk through cities slaughtering everyone in their gun sights, as the British also did in Tasmania, would have looked a little too like Vietnam for most people's comfort.
(3) They could've followed the Duke of Cumberland's model in Scotland, after Culloden, when his Highland clearances decimated the Scottish population (which to this day has left large areas of Scotland less occupied than it might otherwise be). But seeing as many of those rebellious Scots under pain of instant execution left hurriedly for the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia, to escape Butch Cumberland's tender mercies, wholesale decimations like this probably are too much for an Army which draws many of its modern-day recruits from these same 'rebel' areas.
So where does that leave the US Army? I reckon it has two end games. One, is the familiar 'last helicopter leaving from the roof of the surrounded embassy' scenario, sometime in the next five years. The other is to invade Iran to keep the showboat running. Though unless one of the strategies, (1) to (3) above, is adopted in Iran, it will just be the last helicopter leaving from the roof of the Embassy in Tehran (after the slaughter of a couple of million Iranians), rather than from the rooftop in Baghdad, with perhaps another five years added on to the destructive baby-killing ignominy. And with China dumping US treasuries and the Fed pumping billions of counterfeit dollars into the maw of inflation, I'm beginning to doubt the Americans can afford it. Is this (I hope) the beginning of the end of the American Empire? Let us hope so.
There is one other alternative, of course, and that is for the US Army to march out immediately with its held head high, get onto the boats (or onto the airliners), and get back to continental North America where they belong. Or even better, back into the productive economy of North America rather than the wasteful one of the military. Such a policy is of course that declared by Dr. Ron Paul.
But apparently, Fox News and all the other neoconservative mass-murderers, would prefer the Iranian war option, with perhaps the odd nuke thrown in for fun. It would seem they would prefer more slaughters of innocents rather than admit that in any way they are wrong.
God help us all.