Why the Administration Won't Define Success in Iraq

What does it mean if violence goes down in Iraq?

"Success of the surge," says the administration.

What does it mean, then, if the violence goes up in Iraq?

"Success of the surge," they say.

What? How can you manage to say that? Well, that's what the Pentagon did yesterday, claiming that the exploding violence in Iraq is a sign of progress.

For years, we've been asking "What is success" in Iraq? How do we know we're making progress? And, for years, we've gotten nothing but a vague answer from the administration, with no hard metrics.

Now, admittedly, for years I assumed it was because the administration and its proponents simply had no answer -- that they couldn't figure out what the end-state was.

Now, today, it's become painfully clear: It's not that the administration CAN'T define success, it's that they WON'T. For, to lay down some specifics would pin them down, make them accountable. And, above all, it would keep them from claiming success no matter what. Without defining progress, they can make it up on the fly. It can be reduced violence one day, and if the next day sees dozens of deaths, progress can mean that. If a nuclear explosion went off in the middle of Baghdad, you can bet your bottom dollar that the administration would say THAT is a sign of progress.

Here's the blunt truth of it, though. As we at VoteVets.org laid out in our "State of the Wars, Military and Veterans" report, true progress in Iraq cannot be made until the Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr are convinced to give up their arms and become a willing and active partner for peace. As we've seen this week, when the Mahdi Army wants to unleash mass violence, they can do it. Then they'll lay low, rebuild, and launch new attacks. And that cycle will continue forever, until there is a settlement.

That is not an American military problem -- it is an Iraqi political and diplomatic problem. Resolution of this problem was supposed to be a by-product of the surge (though the White House refused to say that would be the end-state of the surge, and now I know why). The surge was supposed to give some time and space to the Iraqi government to confront these tough internal political issues. Yet, as we've seen, it has done anything but that.

I would say that's proof that the surge has failed.

But, of course, I prefer to judge success and failure on pesky little things like metrics. The White House spin machine was wily enough to not concern themselves with petty things like that.

Comments

[research]

End America's GodDamn Iraqi Occupation War Crime NOW!

[larry278]

W & Co can't define success for W & all of those who have ever been associated with W have ever met with success. Having W or his associates define success could be compared to having 5 visually impaired, aka in non-pc terms-blind-, describe an elephant. In the frequent cases when Poppy's monied friends who owed Poppy or were soft touchs bailed W out-they found that W couldn't learn how to be a success. These people don't share their experiences of success or episodes of failure with the mediocre. That means that most of us won't know when & how they bailed W out of his many failures. We will learn of only W's public failures. That will fill W's library,

[PioneerKing]

Dude, success has been defined. The "mission was accomplished," almost five years ago.

[thefirehorse]

They have. 100 years from now when no one is firing at our troops

[MaryinMontcoPA]

Jon, please read "Five Things You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq."
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar, AlterNet. Posted March 27, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80580?page=entire

You're right about the Bush/Cheney tactical refusal to publicly define "success".

I believe you're wrong that Muqtada Al Sadr has to be convinced to lay down arms...

After all, it was Al Sadr who held a 6-month cease fire, and who told his supporters to use non-violent strikes and civil disobedience to oppose this latest attack on his militia. Malawi, backed by the U.S. military and mercenaries, is not attacking *all* militants nor all militias -- only the Sadrists.

The Sadrists, the majority of the elected Parliament, and the majority of Iraqi citizens are Nationalists who want the occupation to end and want to keep Iraq unified.

Maliki -- who was appointed, not elected, and who cannot stay in power without occupation forces supporting him -- is a separatist who wants Iraq divided up.

Now -- shortly after Darth Cheney made his visit to the middle east -- Maliki is trying to kill off his nationalist opposition before Iraqi elections conveniently scheduled 1 month before our US presidential elections. "Success" is imposing a Columbian-style dictatorship with permanent US bases, against the will of the majority of Iraqis.

Iraqis, like humans everywhere, are resisting foreign occupiers attempting to seize their country and steal their resources.

[RReno]

Please visit Dr. Rummel's website on freedom and democracies, www.hawaii.edu/powerkills. There is no doubt in my mind that the community of democracies should support the evolution of freedom in the middle east as a path to peace.

[MNDADDY]

The Administration will not define success in Iraq because the media and faux cable media have never asked for it.

Why start now? http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

[MNDADDY]

The administration will "define success" in Iraq because they have never had to. Why start now.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

[KarenZipdrive]

They won't define success because they don't want us to know that success for them means more money for Halliburton, more money for defense contractors like Blackwater, more money for American petroleum companies and more money for Bush's owners, the Saudis.

[OneLiberalLady]

Yes. Please everyone take a look at the excellent article detailing horrendous abuse in military contracting by a "company" led by a 22 -year -old man and his masseuse. This company had no track record and yet was able to obtain contracts to supply arms to Afghanistan that were worth close to $300 MILLION dollars. Much of the what was supplied were decades old deteriorating artillery abandoned by former Soviet bloc countries. Much was worthless. Here is a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?pagewanted=all

[lastams]

Define success? They won"t even define the conflict!
From the beginning we, the American public, have heard nothing but fairie tales:
How this "democracy" in Iraq is bravely fighting AlQaeda and Iranian backed militias.
With the attacks in Basra, precious little has been said about our strange relationship with AlSadar;
One moment a wanted terrorist, the next a member of the government.
Lately we"ve had a cease-fire with the cleric while his Mahdi Army has been allowed free access to patrol Shiite sections of Baghdad and given free reign in the South.
God forbid the American public should notice that the Iraqi government consists of nothing BUT Iranian backed Shiite extremists (with a few Kurds spinkled in for good measure).
Define success?
Success will be a steady flow of Iraqi oil profits into the hands of Exxon/Mobile.
Success will be huge profits made by military contractors.
Success will be an armed standoff with only the occasional massive explosion.
But mostly, success will be an uneducated American public steeped in dogma driven terms like "victory" and "freedom"; Success will be an ill informed politic who fail to notice that at the end of the day, the "terrorists" we support are virtually indistinguishable from the ones that we are fighting.

[dabeall]

"The surge was supposed to give some time and space to the Iraqi government to confront these tough internal political issues. Yet, as we've seen, it has done anything but that."
To the contrary. What we are seeing is the Iraqi government (Shia-dominated, no less) battling a Shia extremist faction. In the grand scheme, this is a good thing -- at least to those who actually conduct their analysis through something other than a preconceived partisan perspective.
This is another step on the road to victory.

[3rdCitizen]

Sorry, dabeall, but what we're seeing is the Maliki government taking sides in a battle between 2 militant Shia factions (both of which have received support from Iran) for what appear to be cynical political motivations. Here's the link to a very good analysis by Fred Kaplan:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187564/

What you stated is the Bush/Whitehouse spin on the situation (aka "a preconceived partisan perspective").
By the way, how do you envision "victory" in Iraq? And about how many years, dollars, and lives do you expect it to take?

[1NacreousImprimatur]

2CONT....

It is unfortunate that you seem to feel the need to express yourself in such unreasoned terms. I think you would be better served by keeping your emotional outbursts in check , write it for yourself if you want but do some final editing before you submit it for consideration and review by those to whom you wish to persuade and communicate to.
That is unless you specifically wish only to rouse the rabble of the 'lunatic fringe"; frankly, they don't need much prodding in that direction....

[1NacreousImprimatur]

RE: "If a nuclear explosion went off in the middle of Baghdad, you can bet your bottom dollar that the administration would say THAT is a sign of progress."

Jon, one assumes you want to be taken seriously and make a cogent point for adults to consider and not just appeal to the lunatic fringe with your articles and criticism. Persuasion is the art of bringing people around to see your point of view in a way that seems logical, reasonable and insightful. Sometimes that includes the idea of helping people express something they know intuitively already but have not been able to form a literate and reasoned way of expressing themselves. It means speaking or writing in a way that gets beyond the emotional hyperbole that frequently clouds thinking and interferes with discourse and the search for solutions.
I find your needless insertion of statements like this to be not only absurd but extremely off-putting. At the point of reading this statement I immediately discount what you have to say and am less likely to read your writings or listen to your comments on news programs because this seems to put you squarely in the 'lunatic fringe' camp and not among the thoughtful, reasoned critics of the war and the administration.
CONT.....

[1NacreousImprimatur]

CONT...

It is unfortunate that you seem to feel the need to express yourself in such unreasoned terms. I think you would be better served by keeping your emotional outbursts in check , write it for yourself if you want but do some final editing before you submit it for consideration and review by those to whom you wish to persuade and communicate to.
That is unless you specifically wish only to rouse the rabble of the 'lunatic fringe"; frankly, they don't need much prodding in that direction....

[1NacreousImprimatur]

RE: "If a nuclear explosion went off in the middle of Baghdad, you can bet your bottom dollar that the administration would say THAT is a sign of progress."

Jon, one assumes you want to be taken seriously and make a cogent point for adults to consider and not just appeal to the lunatic fringe with your articles and criticism. Persuasion is the art of bringing people around to see your point of view in a way that seems logical, reasonable and insightful. Sometimes that includes the idea of helping people express something they know intuitively already but have not been able to form a literate and reasoned way of expressing themselves. It means speaking or writing in a way that gets beyond the emotional hyperbole that frequently clouds thinking and interferes with discourse and the search for solutions.
I find your needless insertion of statements like this to be not only absurd but extremely off-putting. At the point of reading this statement I immediately discount what you have to say and am less likely to read your writings or listen to your comments on news programs because this seems to put you squarely in the 'lunatic fringe' camp and not among the thoughtful, reasoned critics of the war and the administration.

CONT.....