on the Iraq "war"

I think it is time for someone to take a really rational look at the Iraq "war" in the context of language. What we would call a typical war is the head to head face offs of uniformed troops in a declared situation. Or it can be the head to head conflict of bands of people with other bands of people, whether uniformed or not. I believe that given those ideas, the situation does not seem to be a war. There are few, if any, direct fire fights between troops. Mostly it appears to be roadside bombs, suicide bombers, snipers and death squads attacking defenseless people. It seems to me that Iraq stopped being a war back when we had gained control of the country from the forces of Saddam Hussain. That war, Gulf War 2, ended at that stage. What we've been doing over there is national building. Bush and Burns both say we have to win. But what can we win? We are not fighting anything that resembles a winnable war, anymore than we did in Vietnam. What we are trying to do is keep some kind of lid on while two or more Iraqi cliques attempt to win power through killing rather than elections. Saddam did that. Will we support a strongman in an effort to regain that nation? The point is, if this is a war it is one we cannot win. Iraq may, but we are in a lose-lose situation. We can't win because there is no standard for winning, no basis for it, if you will.