Over the past several months, Bush administration officials have been consistent in their talk of “winning” in Iraq. We are winning. We must win. We can’t leave until we win. A couple of days ago I asked someone - anyone - to explain what “to win” in Iraq means. Crickets (except for this discussion which didn’t answer my question).

In sports, the definition of a “win” is clear - one team gets more runs, points, goals, etc. than the other team. This definition is what a coach uses to create a strategy. Is it different in war or is the definition of a “win” what generals use to create their strategies? If so, then why, with all their talk of winning, hasn’t anyone in the Bush administration been able to define what “winning” in Iraq means?

If you watch interviews with coaches and general managers on ESPN they talk alot about “winning.” It pumps up their team, their fans, and themselves. Is that what the president is doing? Is his talk of winning simply a way to get the American people psyched for another two years of war? Is his strategically-challenged Iraq policy all fluffy rhetoric and no substance?

In the year’s last news conference yesterday, President Bush said he remains confident of victory in Iraq and vowed the United States would not be “run out of the Middle East” by extremists and radicals. So maybe a “win” means that we stand our ground indefinitely? So now the questions becomes, how long do we stand our ground? If winning doesn’t involve scoring more points and there is no final buzzer to signal the end of the game, then when do our troops get to come home?

“The fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that’s troubling to the American people. But I don’t believe most Americans want us just to get out now,” Mr. Bush said yesterday, even though polls show that support for the war is at an all time low. We know that Mr. Bush is stylistically a “Father Knows Best”-type of president, but if Daddy thinks he knows what’s best for us, then are we to blindly follow without a plan? Without a strategy? Without a clear definition of what it means “to win”?

The new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, is currently in Iraq meeting with the generals. Without defining what it means “to win,” he has said that if we fail in Iraq it could lead to a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. How? Why? When, what and just where, exactly?

Richard Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations, said “I think you could say that so far, in this reevaluation process, he is only dressing up stay the course.” Any coach worth a damn will tell you that if y ou’re losing, “stay the course” is not a strategy for “winning” the game.

This post was written by Mary Mancini