What constitutes success?

To the editor:
    Much questioning, arguing, and consternation revolves about the issue of whether or not President Bush’s military surge in Iraq has been, is, or will be a “success.” Much depends, of course, on the definition of “success.” Bush and his advisors initially announced the surge to be intended to allow Iraqi leaders time and ability to get their oil revenue disputes straightened out; to negotiate roles for past Ba’ath Party members; and negotiate other vital domestic issues that needed to be worked out to allow the three main Iraqi groups to work in greater harmony. Others proffered alternate definitions of success; however, since it is Bush’s surge, his definition ought to be the one that is used to judge its effectiveness.
    So far, with hundred of American military killed and wounded countless Iraqi military and civilian dead and wounded; and continual devastation being wrought on the society of Iraq; very little evidence has come forth showing any tangible success with any of the goals set out for the surge. By this standard, the surge has been, is, and likely will be a dismal failure.
    U.S. military and Bush supporting leaders herald the “reduction in violence” in certain areas. They fail to point out that unless we intend to stay there infinitely, this lull in violence in most likely going to `collapse as soon as we depart; is totally artificial, dependent on our presence. This is no way to build a nation. By this standard, too, the surge is a failure.
    By these two major, compelling standards, the surge has failed. When a plan fails, intelligent leaders admit this and make plans to end a failing plan. The Bush Administration seems unwilling and or unable to either recognize failure, admit failure, and or do something constructive about failure. Could election year politics be the cause?
Ken Petress
Presque Isle