Winning in Iraq is easy. All we need to do is redefine what we mean by "progress," and "success." Once we do that, we simply can't lose -- everything that happens in Iraq will be evidence of progress and success. And we have lots of conservatives and a a couple of military leaders (whoever's left after retirement of those with uncorrected vision) available as tour guides in this new world in which everything that happens in Iraq is just further proof that we're winning. Here are just a few people we can count on in this endeavor.
From Bill Kristol on Fox News February 4, 2007 -- we know we're winning because we've worried the enemy into increasing violence:
WALLACE: Same question I asked Senator Graham: can 17,000 U.S. soldiers make all that much of a difference in a city of 6 million?
KRISTOL: Yeah, doubling the U.S. troop presence in Baghdad can make a big difference. Look, if I were a Sunni extremist and was worried, which I would be, about a doubling of U.S. forces in Baghdad, what would I do? I would try to convey an impression of chaos. I would get the biggest truck bomb possible and drive it into a market in a Shiite area....
There’s no evidence they can stand up to U.S. troops and quite a bit of evidence that they’re worried. On the whole over the last two weeks, some of the news for Iraq is slightly optimistic. It’s going to be tough, but I see nothing that persuades me that the surge can’t work quite well.
And while Bush touted the creation of an Iraqi government as great evidence of progress in Iraq, serious problems in that government are, yes, great evidence of success:
from a column in the Washington Post by Robert Kagan, major supporter of the troop surge, entitled:
The 'Surge' Is Succeeding
[Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07]
And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.
And if the upsurge in violence and the government cracking is not enough to convince us of the success of the new surge strategy, then a drop in violence should seal the deal:
According to Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service:
WASHINGTON, March 14, 2007 – Violence is down in Iraq and Iraqis "are starting to see this growth and gaining new confidence," a coalition spokesman in Baghdad said today.
Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell told reporters at a news conference that the decrease in violence has created an opportunity for new progress.
Combined efforts between coalition forces and Iraqi fighting forces have brought down the level of violence in the Iraqi capital, Caldwell said.
But let's not forget how optimistic we should feel now that the Iraqi government is falling apart:
Washington Post, by Ann Scott Tyson:
AMMAN, Jordan, April 17 -- The decision by anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to withdraw ministers loyal to him from the Iraqi cabinet could advance political reconciliation if the vacancies are used to broaden the government's representation, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Tuesday.
Gates, on a Middle East tour, called for a range of efforts from inside and outside Iraq to speed up the formation of a broad-based government of Iraq's majority Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.
And, we should be thankful for the increased violence because it's evidence of increased security:
from the Associated Press, Analysis: Iraq Surge May Be Extended
By ROBERT BURNS 04.21.07, 1:09 PM ET
More than half of the extra 21,500 combat troops designated for Baghdad duty have arrived; the rest are due by June. Already it is evident that putting them in the most hotly contested parts of the capital is taking a toll. An average of 22 U.S. troops have died per week in April, the highest rate so far this year.
"This is certainly a price that we're paying for this increased security," Adm. William Fallon, the senior U.S. commander in the Middle East, told a House committee Wednesday.
But if the American people are still worried about what we're doing in Iraq, let's just move the goalposts closer, or lower the basket, or shorten the race, or whatever, and we can't lose [from the same AP article above]:
The idea of the troop increase, originally billed by the administration as a temporary "surge," is not to defeat the insurgency. That is not thought possible in the near term. The purpose is to contain the violence - in particular, the sect-on-sect killings in Baghdad - long enough to create
And finally, Bobby Kagan's little (I think) brother Freddy echoes Kristol's view on those promising signs of success seen in violence:
from the Weekly Standard, 04/23/2007, Volume 012, Issue 30:
Al Qaeda is certainly fighting hard, and the increase in spectacular attacks in recent weeks reflects a concerted AQI effort to restart the sectarian violence. It also reflects a desperate attempt to regain a foothold in Anbar and other Sunni areas that have turned against terrorism.