That's One Way to Look At It; Here's Another.
As Perrspectives said some time back, President Bush has a new slogan to define "the mission" in Iraq:
In the wake of the Petraeus Report, it appears that President Bush may bring the troop level down to pre-surge numbers (he announced the surge this past January). One may look at his comments when compared to his proposed "reduction" and assume that significant progress is being made.
One reason I think this premise is wrong? Well, the announced purpose of the "surge" was to provide the Iraqi Officials the breathing room they required to get the Iraqi government going. Well, that hasn't happened yet (in fact, they weren't even around because they went on vacation), so in that regard, the surge was a failure.
But even if you use the logic that "more success means less troops" the question remains: What was the success that lead Bush to think that our involvement can go back to pre-surge numbers? Nothing in Petraeus' testimony hinted that demonstrative success was achieved; if anything, he left alot of things unsaid.
Furthermore, if the troop levels don't significantly change for the rest of Bush's term, doesn't that mean that (by Bush's own logic) that the "success" in Iraq has been minimal or even non-existent?
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.
In the wake of the Petraeus Report, it appears that President Bush may bring the troop level down to pre-surge numbers (he announced the surge this past January). One may look at his comments when compared to his proposed "reduction" and assume that significant progress is being made.
One reason I think this premise is wrong? Well, the announced purpose of the "surge" was to provide the Iraqi Officials the breathing room they required to get the Iraqi government going. Well, that hasn't happened yet (in fact, they weren't even around because they went on vacation), so in that regard, the surge was a failure.
But even if you use the logic that "more success means less troops" the question remains: What was the success that lead Bush to think that our involvement can go back to pre-surge numbers? Nothing in Petraeus' testimony hinted that demonstrative success was achieved; if anything, he left alot of things unsaid.
Furthermore, if the troop levels don't significantly change for the rest of Bush's term, doesn't that mean that (by Bush's own logic) that the "success" in Iraq has been minimal or even non-existent?
Comments