Iraq: Win, Lose, Stay, Go?

First:
James Taranto has an interesting quote from Michigan:

Metro Times, a Detroit weekly, quotes a new book from World's Laziest Columnist Gwynne Dyer:

"The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong."

This is a common sentiment on the anti-American left, but Dyer deserves some credit for stating it so forthrightly.

Okay...here's my question: If someone were to question whether or not Ms. Dyer supported the troops, do you think she would reacted with hysterical defensiveness and the patented "OF COURSE I support the troops, I just don't support the administration...blah...blah...blah"?

Because really, it seems to me that wanting America to lose in Iraq means wanting the troops to lose in Iraq. Isn't it? Cause otherwise I'd be able to say something like "I support the Chicago White Sox when they play the Cleveland Indians - but they really need to lose."
How does that make any sense at all??

Wanting the United States to lose is wanting the American Troops to lose which means - wanting American Troops to die, which is deeply reprehensible. But I guess it's the only way Dyer can get the liberal masses to buy her books.

Next:
Jonah Goldberg at The Corner.:

It's no surprise I side with Rich on this, but I would add that staying in Iraq ten years isn't a big deal. Staying in a dangerous Iraq for ten years is. We've had troops in some spots around the world for at least fifty years. Almost no one cares that we're in Germany or Japan because Americans aren't being killed there. If American troops are kept there as a geopolitical stabilizing presence, a la South Korea, but aren't being killed every day this won't bee a particularly controversial issue for us. How it's viewed in Arab countries is certainly a legitimate concern. Also, it's not clear that even if we stayed in Iraq for ten years -- or fifty -- that we'd be doing it with over 100,000 troops. Regardless, if Derb or any one else is keen on pulling troops out of places where they've outlived their utility I can think of lots of places which make more sense than Iraq.

With all the talk about the "exit strategy" for Iraq, these facts about Germany, Japan and South Korea are important to remember.
I would also add Kosovo. What's the exit strategy for Kosovo? Still got troops there - and unlike Germany, it is dangerous.

I think we should stop worrying about when we will leave Iraq and start hoping that things are stable enough for us to remain their safely.