i don't understand why to wait until september to assess whether the surge in iraq is working. it's not even clear what would count as a "success" because the administration won't define the military's goals enough to determine if they are achieved. waiting until september won't clarify anything.
the only portion of the plan that is concrete enough to measure, are the things the iraqi parliament is supposed to do. none of those benchmarks are anywhere near being met.
sometimes half the battle is defining what counts as success. when you have goals that are ill-defined, you can't possibly succeed. so it's a failure before you even begin.
in the case of the surge, the administration has given concrete benchmarks for success to the iraqi parliament but left the military's goals vague. (why setting benchmarks for parliament are okay, but setting them for the military is a no-no has never been clear). i'm convinced they did that way so they could blame the iraqi parliament for the surge's eventual failure. but really by refusing to define specifically how to assess success on the military side of the equation, can never really be an unambiguous military "success." any actual accomplishments will always appear to be after-the-fact justifications. rather than silencing critics, refusing to set military benchmarks guarantees that the surge will be, at best, a debatable failure.
