a central Iraqi government controlling enough soldiers and policemen to suppress violence, and an elective bicameral representative government to manage the whole.

That's what existed before the invasion - of course the elections were a bit dodgy, and the elected representatives had learned to roll over and do whatever the executive wanted, but you could say the same of a lot of countries, including the main invaders.

My point is, that definition doesn't include anything about Iraq being a free society, or about it being friendly to the West and all that stuff.

The truth of it is, the outcome of this is either going to be a divided Iraq, with an Iranian and Syrian sphere of influence, and a quasi independent Kurdistan, with Turkey looming over it - or a new Saddam-style strong man holding the country down ruthlessly, with logistical backing by the USA.

Neither of those outcomes could properly be called any kind of "victory".