Keith, thanks for replying,

"The shooting by the military of both sides has to have ceased and one side is incapaciated by the withdrawal, surrender, capture or deaths of it's military and political leadership."
In Iraq that is the case. .............. most certainly, the war against Saddam Hussein's authoritarian government is finished, Saddam lost
If this is the sole definition then COW "won"
Obviously, many of those who hold opinions "left" of yours, regard the invasion that led to the "victory" as a blot against the Bush government.

As for
". Another would be when effective local government replaces military occupation" and
" All civil, criminal, terrorist or anarchical activities need be policed by local forces, laws and judiciary"
do you mean by 'local', regions within what is still referred to as 'IRAQ' or as in 'IRAQ' as a whole?
If I appear pedantic, there would be different responses to both definitions.

And re. …….."the conditions of the previous regime could not possibly reappear. ie a change of political system not just a regime change"
A return to an authoritarian government for 'IRAQ' would most certainly have negative implications for many.
Mark Conley

Keith holds that the invasion of Iraq should judged a success if 5 years after the launch of the invasion the insurgency appears to have been crushed by the might of the US occupation forces.

He accepts at face value the claims that the US was in any way interested in democracy and the welfare of the Iraq, but ignores the evidence (#130228) that at one critical time in this conflict, dictatorship was imposed by the US occupation authority so that the crony capitalists it served could plunder both the wealth of Iraq and the US treasury, thereby impoverishing Iraqis and creating the conditions that caused the conflict to endure as it did.

He also ignores evidence, that much of the conflict, particularly the sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis appears to have been a consequence of 'false flag' terrorism either directly carried out by the occupying forces or sponsored by them. I wrote of above (#130229).

Of this Dr. Elias Akleh writes in "British Terrorism in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1024

"It had been long known to the Iraqis, to the Arabs, and to all Moslems in countries bordering Iraq that the majority of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, especially car bombing, are perpetrated by covert British, American, and Israeli operatives. It is also well known to them that the terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and his 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' are just inventions of the coalition forces to justify their existence. More and more evidences are coming out of Iraq to support this fact. The arrest of two undercover British SAS operatives last week, disguised as Arabs trying to plant a car bomb in the middle of Basra during the Karbala Festival, which draws as many as 3 million pilgrims to the city, is just the latest of such revelations. ..." (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1024)

See also "Iraq probe into soldier incident" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm "State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9447

So the evidence that much of the violence that apologists for the invasion choose to blame on the Iraqis was indeed caused by the US and the Americans.

justone person,

I see your point. I was unclear, but I mean't a Iraq as a whole.

I've never really made up my mind as to whether the invasion was wrong or not. I supported both it and the surge at the time. I probably won't bother as I don't consider it all that relevant ... now.

A return to dictatorship or fragmentation of Iraq, unless the current fairly encouraging conditions drastically change, could only mean the effort was wasted and the war lost.

Daggett,
where ever did I give a timeline or claimed it as a success. You've set up a strawman argument ... and won. Congratulations.

Dagget,

You really are the most gullible person alive.

Can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale in Sydney? Its in good nick with a harbourside view.

You’re probably the only person left on this planet who thinks OJ was innocent.

Because Global Research tell you so, ALL of the violence in Iraq was carried out by the Allies undercover secret agents to make it look like the Sunnis and the Shia were at war, when they really weren’t.? Why?

The Bush regime, before they actually came into power, began the planning for the false flag, 9/11 attacks so they could attack Iraq and take over. But they told the truth about WMD’s which lost them most of the credibility and trust they gained as a consequence of 9/11. Why?

Then they helped organise the false flag attacks in Mumbai. Where else? London? Spain? Agin to frame the Islamic terrorists.

Is there any such thing as Al Qaeda or are they all CIA agents as well?

Is it really George Bush that’s President or is he some brainwashed look-a-like who does the EVIL Capitalists bidding?

Who’s really behind all this anyway? 50 Fat Cat Capitalists in a back room in Switzerland smoking cigars and plotting global domination?

By the way, you have to read this article on why aliens were the ones who built the pyramids. http://www.outerworlds.com/likeness/aliens/aliens.html

If you had ANY critical faculties whatsoever you would recognise the similarities between the tone, and the dodgy evidence, from your truther websites.

Yabby,

Osama can roll around in his cave all he likes but he can never, ever leave it or its locale, ever agin.

Iraq’s has always had a shia majority and democracy was always going to deliver power to them. That doesn’t mean we will have another Iran on our hands.

Frankly you don’t have a clue what right wing even means. Have a look at Fox news and then we can talk.

Might be an idea if you learnt to frame an argument, using evidence.

*but he can never, ever leave it or its locale, ever agin.*

Wow, what a punishment! I think you will find that Al Queda do
pretty much as they please, in the tribal areas of Pakistan,
along the Afghanistan border. The Pakistani military hardly
dares go there. Zawahiri seemingly moves around as he pleases,
they tried to bomb him but missed. This, the so called greatest
military on earth, unable to nail a few Arab towel heads.

Meantime, Osama's predition that he would bankrupt America
sounds more likely every day! Now how much has Osama cost
America so far?

*Frankly you don’t have a clue what right wing even means. Have a look at Fox news and then we can talk.*

Bloomberg is hardly left wing, so perhaps you don't know what that
means. Fox News is something else altogether. I give Rupert credit
for one thing, he is a great businessman, who long ago worked out
that to make a quid, you need to push peoples emotional buttons.

From the page 3 girls in his papers, to the religious channels,
to Fox News, there is money in milking the true believers.
Tell em what they want to hear and they will flock in and make
you money. So from the trailer trash to the hockey moms, the
devout believers will follow every word.

Bloomberg is about the views of business and corporate America,
a whole different story altogether and hardly left wing.

Paul wrote, "Because Global Research tell you so, ALL of the violence in Iraq was carried out by the Allies undercover secret agents to make it look like the Sunnis and the Shia were at war, when they really weren’t.?... "

Paul, if you want us to automatically disregard anything written by Global Research, how about showing us where they have got their facts wrong?

So what do you think the British SAS soldiers were doing dressed as Arabs in a booby-trapped car? (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm)?

Paul only finds unbelievable the notion that British and American occupiers would be capable of instigating violence.

He has no problem believing that the Iraqis themselves are the ones who have instigated nearly all the violence.