In the WSJ this morning, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad outlines a new plan to win “the Battle of Baghdad.”

Isn’t this rather late in the day? Of course it is. But the fact of the matter is the U.S. entered Iraq woefully unprepared for the reality of post-modern warfare. That leaves two options: accept defeat (and its consequences) or shake off the blows and creatively devise new ways to fight and win.

Which is the right approach? This question, and not whether liberating Iraq three years ago was a wise decision, should be what politicians of both parties now address.

Khalilzad writes: “The Battle of Baghdad will determine the future of Iraq, which will itself go a long way to determining the future of the world’s most vital region.”

It’s hard to argue with that.