We can't win...but we can redeploy...then win?

I cannot express in clean language the level of contempt that I feel for Howard Dean. On a regular basis he has knowlingly misrespresented facts and spread outright lies. Now he says the following (emphasis added):

The "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way.

So Iraq is unwinnable. Therefore we should leave, right? Despite what he just said, Dean doesn't think so:

I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years. Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

So Iraq is unwinnable, but we should keep a force nearby to fight Zarqawi. The force should not be in Iraq, where Zarqawi is, but in a "friendly neighboring country." What country does he have in mind? How does moving where the American forces are stationed take the target off their backs? Maybe he'll tell us in 2006 when the Democrat Miracle Plan is unveiled. Until then it seems we will have to be content with the contradictions that Dean purveys.