I'll define victory as: "Controlling a region, while making a profit".

Historically it was done by applying continuous force. First to defeat the government, and if necessary, to defeat the population. When the region has been pacified enough for trade and taxation to become profitable, all you need is some type of garrison or police force to maintain the status quo for the necessary amount of time.

But like you say, that doesn't work anymore. Compared to earlier societies the present western world has an extremely low tolerance for what is today deemed excessive use of force.
Meaning; no city sacking, torture, executions, mass punishment or genocide.

I'm no advocate of war, but I know if you're going to engage in one, proper use of force is the only way to go. That includes massacring entire cities, families and children in order to prove a point. The actual amount of force is secondary to the promise of it. This is why ancient generals like Alexander and Caesar experienced minimal rebellions and dissidence in conquered provinces, even though they were months and years away from applying direct force if it had been needed. They set the standard, immediately.

With Iraq you have the situation of an imperialistic superpower, as perceived by the native population, going in under the pretense to liberate a people from a dictator and the world from WMDs. Of course, considering the superpower themselves placed the dictator in power, funded him and gave him the WMDs, it creates some public relations difficulties. Neither does it help that the superpower has already attacked one of your neighbors and is actively threatening another.

So you can't use force, and the image card to sway them ideologically is pretty much out the window. As are religion and culture. The last card is money. How about some prosperity? Well, after the globalists have taken their 'share', what's left? And how big a slice of that is going to the Iraqi government operating expenses and interest to the World Bank?

On top of that you have to take into consideration that there is no centralized enemy, home support is dwindling and the simple fact that 'war' is more profitable than 'victory'.

So no, I don't think you can win in any satisfying way. Mostly because wars and victories are not what they used to be. In the old days they fought for money, territory and power. Today they fight so they can hold office and distract their citizens from all their heinous money and power making schemes.

Edit: I think you can win, but I don't believe you will.   

He could never do that. First off that would be totally unacceptable to big business, and secondly it would utterly shatter what is left of the illusion created by the administration. Bush' may be shitting on the constitution and passing fascist laws, but he still needs to act somewhat in accordance to this illusion.

Fantasia? That's extremely bold.

Action needs to be taken in a lot of places, but we need to start focusing on why some people are 'hellbent on destroying the west'. If we're so wonderful, how can that be? It doesn't make any sense.

Read up on the covert history of the west this last century and you'll see plenty of reasons. Grave and horrific reasons.

The major shareholders of Hasbro are:

Citigroup (banking)
Rowe Price Associates Inc. (investment management)
Barclays plc (banking)
State Street Corporation (investment management)
TCW Group (investment management)
Vanguard Group (investment management)

In other words, major advocates for the cashless society.

Effective from May, Alfred J. Verrechio will assume his appointment as Chairman of the Board of Directors, effectively ending 85 years of control of the Hassenfeld family, who founded the company.

If we only knew what 'current GN'R' were.

14 trillion budget.

120 trillion debt.

An additional trillion each year just to keep running.

It's a wonder it's stayed afloat this long.

Buy gold and silver folks, and make sure you can hold it in your hand.