Military intelligence: At a press conference last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace said winning the war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a treaty. Well, duh!

“Winning is having security in the countries we’re trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function,” he said. “Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That’s what you’re looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else.”

So, the goal here, if I understand it correctly General, is to make Baghdad and Kabul as safe as our nation’s capital?

In 1960, there were about 27 crimes per thousand residents in Washington, D.C. In 2005, there were 62 per thousand. Of course, over that period of time, the population of D.C. actually fell from 764,000 to 551,000 — a reduction of 214,000, or 28 percent — while the crime rate increased by 57 percent. So Washington is actually a more dangerous place than it was 45 years ago. And Baghdad and Kabul are both more dangerous now than they were before we started the war on terror.

So maybe Washington is an appropriate benchmark for what constitutes a win in the war on terror, after all.