If we're winning, what is the Iraq Study Group doing?

Today's L.A. Times features a story about James A. Baker III's Iraq Study Group, and it's findings, to be released after the election (what a surprise). Among the juicier tidbits:

A commission backed by President Bush that is exploring U.S. options in Iraq intends to propose significant changes in the administration's strategy by early next year, members say.

Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.

Hmmm, phased troop withdrawals. Greater diplomatic efforts. Sounds kinda familiar. Hasn't someone else suggested this? Can't quite place it. Oh well, moving on.

Bringing Iran and Syria into negotiations would require significant changes in U.S. policy.

"To bring them in, we need to stop emphasizing things like democracy and start emphasizing things like stability and territorial integrity," said James Dobbins of the Rand Corp., a former U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. "We need to stop talking about regime change. It's unreasonable to think you can stabilize Iraq and destabilize Iran and Syria at the same time."

What an unserious dove. Doesn't he know you don't sit on your bayonets?

"You can't come out of those briefings and not have a sense that things are in real bad shape," one participant said. "The bottom line is, it's not working. They know that. And they know that time is not on their side."

They need to read more Putz, obviously. Because if they did, they'd see that we were winning, wouldn't they, Putz?