Iraq Success=More Violence

Pentagon says new Iraq fighting arises from surge's success

For a moment it was like I was traveling back in time, to the era of Rumsfield language where everything meant we were succeeding in Iraq. Car bombs, suicide bombers--that was just a sign we were succeeding. Well, I wasn't traveling back in time, it's just that they are recycling the argument that while a lack of violence means success, so does more violence.

More below, although you've heard it all before.

The Pentagon on Wednesday said an eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a "by-product of the success of the surge."

Yep, the surge is so great that we need to keep all of the soldiers there.  The surge is so great, that it crates more violence. The surge is so great...

I thought a by-product of success would be political reconciliation, and maybe a few less dead soldiers. Silly me.

"I do not think, at this stage, which is mere days into this operation, anyone is prepared to stand here and tell you that they feel as though that the gains we've made over the past several months are in jeopardy," he said.
"I think they would tell you just the opposite: that this is a sign that the Iraqi security forces are now capable of confronting, fundamentally, their problems," he said.

I want to make clear that I hope he is right. Nothing would make me happier that a peaceful Iraq. But I've heard this too many times in the past. Since we don't know what success is in Iraq, we can define it as anything. It remind me of this classic from the Daily Show. (Which I would embed, except I can't make it work.

Keys to Success