If I recall correctly, the whole point of calling the surge a surge was that it was a temporary - perhaps 3 months in duration - increase in troop levels. If that's so, and even granting a 6 month duration of surge, then the surge should have been over by no later than some time in 2007, no? And then, shouldn't the question "is the surge working?" be absurd? That is, in July of 2008, by definition, if the surge is not long over, and the troop levels at or below pre-surge levels, then right there, it failed to even be a surge! Have troop levels gone down to pre-surge levels? If they were, nobody would be asking if the surge IS working, but rather if it DID work (note the very important past tense.)

On top of that, wasn't it supposed to add that extra level of security to give the Iraqis breathing room to "stand up so that we could stand down?" Well, did it do that, even is spite of it not really being a "surge", but just an increase in troop levels? I don't think so. Therefore, it failed.

Nor did it do much (isn't doing much?) to reduce global terror - remember that one? And long before the Surge, Saddam Hussein was dead, and mission was accomplished with major combat operations in Iraq being completed. Um, so if we're finished with major combat operations, why do we need to send more combat troops in?

So how does anyone even try to suggest that the "surge is working?"

But of course, nobody even bothers to even consider holding the Bush administration accountable any more - they've conditioned us to not even think about going back to their original words on policies like the surge and then asking why it bears no resemblance to what they said they would do.

I would really like someone in the media to ask some surge supporters some of these basic definitional questions.