Blowing smoke

Matt Yglesias, who has been focused on this issue more than anyone else that I read, and who provided much of the information behind my June 11 post Tarot cards and ouija boards, hits again on the issue of what the "Surge" really means. Together with Jim Henley, they probably do a better job -- and much more concisely -- than I did, pointing out the distinction between the "pretended" meaning of the "Surge" -- the increase in troop level -- and the actual meaning of the "Surge" -- the increased troops, the pay-off of Sunni insurgents, the permitting of the ethnic and religious cleansing, and the fortification of Baghdad.

Yet defining the Surge alone does not present the full picture. Having a consistent definition of success is at least as important. It's apparently un-American to define success in a way that it cannot be achieved. But the reality is, success requires a real goal, and at this point the only real success is one that enables our troops to come home once that success is achieved. Nobody is now realistically discussing the idea that success means a stable, democratic, pro-U.S., friendly-to-Israel, positive influence on its neighbors, who gives unlimited supplies of oil to the U.S. for free, elite vacation resort Iraq.

The so-called success of the Surge reinforces itself. If success is defined as the relative "security" that the Surge has brought to Iraq, does a reduction in forces really make sense, lest that success be fleeting? It's John McCain's argument -- because the Surge is a success, we must remain indefinitely. Accepting that argument is a dangerous prescription for a permanent presence in Iraq.