It may be justified to ask leftist war critics why defeat in Iraq is a good thing (although let us not forget that we would not even be facing this issue if Bush and his cohorts had not taken us into an unnecessary and undeclared war in the first place).
On the other hand, you and the other war-rightists (I put it this way because I know that your orientation on the war is not ipso facto your orientation on other things) have to answer the more pressing and more unanswerable question of why victory is a good thing.

I was glad to see your statement :
"The president has given up on selling the war to the American people." show up early in your column. It nicely highlights the frame of mind that brought us to the state of affairs which you so badly represent in the rest.
For it was the selling of an unnecessary war, linking very deliberately a tragic event and the wish to prevent more, that now allows you to pose the false choice "victory or defeat". For we did not need then nor do we need now - "victory".
Words are important. Ask any salesman.
Why else would Iraq be deigned a battle in the "Global War Against Islamofascist dietary Habits", or some such marketing term. We did not need in 2003 nor do we need now to have an occupational force in Iraq any more than we needed to invade or occupy Michagan , Oregon and Arizona while looking for The White terror group(s) with which Tim McVie formatted his beliefs.
You begin well. You don't end quite so well:
" It would be nice to hear a little less political posturing and a little more common sense. "
The posturing belongs to you,acting as if Iraq is a simple yes or no. The common sense you do not hear is the sense of the majority of Americans. Saying there that there is no purpose to/for the continuing deaths, is not defeat.Just buyers regret, for falling for the sales pitch.
This war is not is a heavily armored version of
Glengarry Glen Ross .

oops, I meant columnist.

do you gadflies really think "victory" or "defeat" can be equated with good news bad news? this war is not about victory or defeat. it is about money (as have been most wars since WWII).

the media (left and right) are de facto "bookies". they don't care who wins. they simply set the "line" in order to attract as much "action" as they can (from both sides).

had George Bush and his band of overzealous crusaders taken the time to "sell" the American public on the war with candor and logic ("...OK, it is about oil, but trust me, we need to do this..."), instead of the pathetic shell game (...9/11, WMD's, fight them ther so we don't have to fight them here...").

aside from the "business" of war (Blackwater, Haliburton, ExxonMobil, etc.); war is serious business. watch "The War" on PBS. see how (legit) wars are waged and won.

somewhere between 50-60 million people died (nearly half of them civilians) during WWII. the Allies destoryed entire cities; and the war did not end until we nuked Japan (not once, but twice). Nearly 200,000 (civilians and soldiers) died in the Battle of Okinawa alone.

again, has Bush taken the time to convince America it was in our best interests to wage and win this war, perhaps we could debate benefit/cost of the outcome.

I believe the USMC coined the phrase; "...failure is not an option..." well, like it or not; because of the very essence of this war, "failure" is an option.

I am not some bleeding heart. in fact, I am quite the opposite. if we must wage a war, it must do so with ruthless and amoral conviction. George Bush lacks conviction, and it is his lack of conviction, which has made "failure" an option.

at least that's how I see it from the Sports page...

of course, victory would be a wonderful thing; however, writer Eric Von Haessler fails to define victory. Defining "DEFEAT" is as simple as saying leaving is getting defeated, and any simpleton can write that. So, what would victory be? Those of us who've been cynics from the moment of the invasion imagine VICTORY to the Bush regime is nothing more than profit from IRAQI oil.

Is winning the war about winning the profit and sacrificing lives for it? Just askin'

of course, victory would be a wonderful thing; however, writer Eric Von Haessler fails to define victory. Defining "DEFEAT" is as simple as saying leaving is getting defeated, and any simpleton can write that. So, what would victory be? Those of us who've been cynics from the moment of the invasion imagine VICTORY to the Bush regime is nothing more than profit from IRAQI oil.

Is winning the war about winning the profit and sacrificing lives for it? Just askin'