U.S. and British forces are said to be as close as 19 miles from Baghdad. In a press briefing yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that coalition troops will accept no less than “unconditional surrender” in the war in Iraq. Whose “unconditional surrender”? And is “unconditional surrender” the only outcome the U.S. should accept to declare victory and end the war?

Mike Hirsh, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, says that “the unconditional surrender” demand is meant to convey the message that the U.S. is not willing to negotiate with Saddam Hussein or his party leadership.

Leon Sigal, author of “Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, 1945,” says that even though it may prolong the war, “unconditional surrender” is the only outcome the U.S. should accept in order to declare victory in the war in Iraq.

Click the “Listen” link to hear more about what will constitute a U.S. victory in the current war in Iraq and whether “unconditional surrender” is the ultimate outcome the U.S. should settle for.

Guests:

Leon Sigal, Director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York and author of “Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, 1945″

Tom Nichols, Chairman of the Department of Strategy and Policy at the Naval War College

Michael Hirsh, Senior Editor at Newsweek Magazine

Jack Beatty, On Point News Analyst.