“We are kicking ass.”
President George Bush’s analysis of his troop surge is the kind of statement the Bush Administration wants everyone to believe about our prospects in Iraq.
And with recent declines in sectarian violence nationally – around an 80 percent decline in Baghdad alone – that conclusion is easy to believe. 
However, these attractive numbers are purely cosmetic.                             Political progress has been plagued by religious divides and corruption. The Iraqi leadership is almost entirely ineffective. A recent “DeBaathification” law passed by the Iraqi government was supposed to make the political process more inclusive to the minority Sunni Arab community – an accomplishment praised by the Bush Administration. 
But a Jan. 23 article in The Washington Post reveals that many Iraqis and U.S. officials “expressed concern in interviews that the law could set off a new purge of ex-Baathists, the opposite of U.S. hopes for the legislation.”
This story arc is no rarity; it has played itself out repeatedly.
The U.S. government has also resorted to bribing Sunni “awakening” groups with money and arms to fight Al-Qaeda. Yet these groups often fight each other, and their allegiances to the Shiite government and the U.S. troops are unclear. What happens when the money stops?
Does blowback ring a bell?
Meanwhile, costs for the war are estimated at $2 billion a week, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize -winning economist, has projected the total war costs could be moderately estimated at $2 trillion.
We are also told that Iraq is the central front in the “War on Terror,” that Al-Qaeda will follow us home if we pull out of Iraq.
However, even the Bush-friendliest estimates find Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s forces make up only about 15 percent of the insurgency – many government agencies estimate that number to be as low as 1 percent. 
Ninety-nine percent of the enemy combatants in Iraq were not enemy combatants until we invaded. 
The truth is the surge was never intended to yield victory in Iraq. The chance for a real victory in Iraq is long gone. The surge was designed to save President Bush’s legacy – and that of his fellow national security conservatives – while quieting public dissent about the war. 
By these benchmarks, the surge has certainly been successful.
Unfortunately, the public has become increasingly disinterested in the war. A recent Rasmussen poll reveals that while 40 percent of the public believes the economy to be the top issue in the 2008 Presidential Election, only 13 percent consider the War in Iraq as the top issue. The media has also shown war fatigue; the war is out of the limelight presumably because of the decrease in violence.
Democrats in Congress and in the presidential race are also to blame. The Democrats took Congress on a promise to get our troops out of Iraq, but they have cut and run on the issue. They have let conservative groups like the American Enterprise Institute boast about success without offering a counterargument.
As for Bush, it appears he has no problem handing this disaster off to the next president – and the surge has provided enough artificial success to possibly propel a Republican back into the Oval Office.
The 2008 Presidential Election is crucial to saving the Republicans’ legacy, and Sen. John McCain, R – Ariz., is a perfect fit. McCain – who has championed this surge from its inception – will have no problem debating the “success” of the surge with the Democratic nominee.
McCain has made it clear he is prepared to keep us financially and militarily committed to Iraq for 100 years if he deems it necessary, and unless the Democratic candidate can grow a pair, that may be exactly what happens. No offense, Sen. Hillary Clinton.
—-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]