UPDATE: Bush "Time horizons" in Iraq, GOP redefines success, Iraqis say WTF?

One of the enduring memes employed by the Republican Party and more recently by McCain himself is the assertion that the surge has worked and that we are finally succeeding in the war in Iraq. Like many here I call bullshit, but with caveats I think are important to the political discourse.

I have three major problems:

1. The war ended 5 years ago; we occupy Iraq; we are not at war with Iraq or its leaders and have not been since 2003.  To even call this continuing conflict a war mislabels our current presence there.

2. In the past victory indicated the end of the conflict and its resident hostilities. Now Republicans define victory differently: less death.

3. The Iraqi people don't believe that the surge has worked and want the US to leave.  Sooner rather than later!!!

Since point one is self evident to me, I will instead start with point two.  In WW I, WW II, Revolutionary War, Civil War, etc. victory was achieved by the surrender of the government and its armed forces to the victorious army. In Japan and Germany after WW II, this surrender was followed by a cessation of conflict and hostilities.  Though it is possible some soldiers were killed in acts of violence, there was never a sizable minority of Japanese or German citizens that directed coordinated efforts to kill Americans or other allied soldiers.

Currently, US soldiers that occupy bases in these countries are only at risk of death by accident, suicide or criminal activity.  It goes without saying that in no conflict has victory been marked by continued campaigns of violence that persisted more than 5 years after the original military victory. Since we lost the Viet Nam War it is unfair to reference that conflict.

Historically, that has been the most significant marker of victory and success in war.  Basically, whenever you win, the other side gives up its coordinated efforts to defeat you.  That has been the hallmark of victory.  That has been the hallmark of military success.

And yet, we are now faced with GOP operatives that claim the surge has been effective and that victory is just around the corner.  Success of course has been defined not as a cessation of violence, but as a lessening of violence.  We are succeeding, according to theses charlatans not b/c we have ended hostilities, but b/c fewer American soldiers are dying.

Furthermore, the surge has not achieved its intended goals: creating political space for the Iraqis to reconcile their ethnic differences and hammer out the steps necessary for a realistic future.

Worse, there is no hope in the future that the US will ever be seen as a friendly or benevolent presence by sufficient majorities to ever end violence against the US.  Large minorities in the country will continue to coordinate attacks against our soldiers.

Even if we retreat to secure bases outside the major cities of Iraq, our soldiers cannot be guaranteed safe passage in Iraqi cities. They will always be at risk if they venture  outside of US enclaves, unlike our soldiers in South Korea, Japan and Germany.

It is not surprising that a large minority of Iraqis oppose our presence.  We are after all occupiers. Sadly, it is not a large minority that believes this, but a large majority. I mention the large minority b/c they are the ones willing to take up arms against US forces.  Our presence is a source of humiliation to most Iraqis. Some are willing to attack us b/c of this humiliation. We are not currently helping the situation, and in fact we are provoking conflict.

According to a 2006 poll by WorldPublic Opinion.org, 78% of Iraqis thought the US was provoking more conflict, and 61% of Iraqis supported attacks against US troops, including 62% of Shia and an alarming 92% of Sunni.  Only the Kurds (15%) had a minority supporting attacks against US soldiers. According to a 2008 Opinion Research Business and Channel 4 News (UK) poll of Iraqis, nearly half (48%) believe, taking everything into account, that the 2003 invasion was not in their best interests. Only 29% of Iraqis do think so.

Bushco, meanwhile, continues to to redefine our presence depending on objective factors on the ground--i.e. we need to stay b/c we need to win, or we need to stay b/c we are winning.  McSame has continued to echo that opinion.

At the same time, polls conducted in Iraq over the past 3 years indicate that Iraqis are living in just the opposite reality--i.e. US forces need to leave b/c we are provoking conflict, US forces need to leave b/c the conflict has abated.  They want the US to leave no matter what the objective factors are on the ground.

During 1996, at the height of the continuing conflict in Iraq, polls in Iraq indicated sustained support for a withdrawal of American forces.  According to polls by WorldPublicOpinion.org in Jan 2006, 70% of Iraqis wanted the US to withdrawal either immediately, or within 2 years.  By Sept 2006, WPO reported that the percent had grown to 90%, with 70% wanting the US to leave within a year.

Fast forward to 2008 and Iraqis are still not supportive of the US military presence even though violence has abated in Iraq.  In the poll conducted by ORB/Channel 4 (UK), even though 68% of Iraqis are fairly optimistic about their country becoming normal and peaceful one day and 80% say the situation in their area is fairly peaceful, only 26% of Iraqis say the US "Surge" has been fairly successful.  Instead, 53% of Iraqis say that the "Surge" has not been successful.  Asked if they want the Multi-national forces--notice the poll doesn't say US forces--to stay or leave, 70% of Iraqis still say they want the US to leave, 59% wanting the US to leave within a year (Hmmm, doesn't that sound familiar?).  Only 21% of Iraqis want the US to stay, most of which are Kurds in the Northern part of Iraq.

So success or not, Iraqis want the US to leave, the American people want the US to leave, even the Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawal now, and we are stuck with a Presidential candidate repeating Bushco frames that say we must stay until victroy is achieved b/c "the surge" is succeeding in Iraq, a frame that even the Iraqi people don't buy.  The American people shouldn't be hoodwinked into believing it either.

Therefore, it is important that we not only push to have our troops be removed from Iraq, but we should fight this redefinition of success.  The US will never succeed in Iraq unless there is a complete secession of coordinated violence against our soldiers.  Since that measure of success will never be achieved, we should withdraw from Iraq and allow their leaders to rebuild their country without our presence.

UPDATE: WaPo is now reporting that Bush has agreed to a "time horizon", whatever the fuck that means.

President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq as security conditions in the war-ravaged nation continue to improve.

I have emphasized the Bush administrations double speak to emphasize the fluid nature of the Bush administrations position. Iraqis, meanwhile continue to press for a firm withdrawal time-table--You know, Obama's position.