The surge's success is not the same as the success of the overall war effort. The author confuses the two. Imagine going back to 2003 and being told the future state of Iraq in February 2008, the author says, and you can't say the war is a success. Maybe. But that has little to do with the success of the surge, which is a more limited question.

Also, why does success require a reduction of troops and nothing but? Why can't a reduction in violence or more stability equally be termed a success? Without the surge, there likely would have been more US and Iraqi dead. The author thinks this a sign of an unsuccessful strategy? It may not be the best outcome we could imagine, but it hardly means the surge was a bad idea. Of course reducing US troop levels is ultimately the goal, but why must this happen by July in order to call the surge a success? The author skips these questions and conveniently defines success such that his stance can't possibly be wrong.

Finally, the author claims the surge is a bad idea, but doesn't put forth his own alternative. What did he prefer we do instead, what does he prefer we do now? Maybe pull the troops out in very quick fashion. We could debate the merits of this, but it's telling that the author doesn't even bother. Instead, the author seems to wish that the war never happened. Me too. But since it did, what should we do about it?

That's some good stuff if this were a debating or logical thinking class.

But, really, these are all intermediate arguments to the question of whether it is better to stay, go or some combination of the two.

Most rational people would agree staying in some form is better if it ultimately leads to stability. Unfortunately, as Rummy put it, that is "unknowable."

However, hemorrhaging American blood and cash is knowable. And, it appears increasingly likely the overall outcome will be no different than the outcome of the earlier English occupation. To support that line of thinking, it also seems posible America could end up redrawing the borders of the country too (See Biden plan #1).

I'll try to make this brief...

Why can't a reduction in violence or more stability equally be termed a success?

Because if the surge doesn't contribute to long term stability in Iraq, as the lack of any hope of significant draw down indicates, than it is simply delaying the inevitable, and probably even higher; this is because by giving the Sunni militas breathing room from Shia death squads, they will be able to put up a greater fight in the future, thus causing more deaths. Unless you subscribe to the notions that future deaths are less important than current deaths, and accepting the notion that the surge hasn't made a long run contribution to Iraqi stability, then surge hasn't accomplished anything, and at the real cost of deploying those troops...

Of course reducing US troop levels is ultimately the goal, but why must this happen by July in order to call the surge a success?

Because that was the implication of the term 'surge' which the American public was lead to believe would happen. To toss this back at you, 'Why not 100 years? 200? It's all relative.' The answer is that the longer we are there the higher the real cost of keeping a garrison in Iraq (versus the speculated additional, indirect costs that MIGHT occur if we withdraw). There is no draw down in site, no firm date, and no reason to think it will happen anytime in the next decade. A boundless committment = failure, because commitments are costly.

Nice post. I'm afraid the only reason for this article is that for months the Bush haters have been gagging on American success, and Kinsley's bile finally produced an article to squeeze in under the title he's been dying to write.

We're winning an important struggle in Iraq; there's a good chance, with a semi-permanent base there, Iraq can prosper and be a model for neighboring Arab countries.

Bush will be remembered, 50 years from now, as a great president ... the way Lincoln is viewed now, unlike during his life when Booth didn't bother to run hard for the Dixie border, sure that no one would be upset by Lincoln's assassination.

Actually, there is very little chance. Beyond the cost of a military committment, what overrated peace there is in the country is the result of the legitimization of armed ethnic militias. The Bush administration talks about 'democracy' but when they choose to discuss how they are going to bring long term stability, the fuzzy logic almost always boils down to 'give these thugs their fiefs and they will leave us, and each other alone'. I don't know in what world you consider that 'democracy', but I seriously doubt the arab world will see it as anything other than business as usual.