Victory in Iraq ?

In the Weekly Standard site, Eric Egland has what he calls a "Six Steps to Victory Plan" for Iraq. He proposes that the US do the following in order "to win" in Iraq:

1. Encourage innovation by emphasizing small-scale technological solutions and rejecting peacetime bureaucracy.
2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.
3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.
4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.
5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.
6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.

Ah, if only it were that easy. It seems to me that the first problem is to define or rather to refine what is mean by victory in Iraq. If victory means creating a democracy, which is going to change the Middle East then the US should prepare itself to spend fifty years in Iraq. If victory means something other, the question remains whether the US can be the party to achieve it and whether its presence itself in the country does more harm than good. The problem with Egland's plan is that it fells even to address the fact that Iraq might not be salvageable. Egland assumes that everything depends on the  US and it has full control over what happens or can happen in Iraq when recent years have shown that it isn't the case. It is a mistake not to learn from recent history and not to take into consideration the particularities of Iraq and of the region, which might make any type of grand master American plan not only dangerous, but also counterproductive.