\jeff{krimmel}

Tell Me What Success Means

The House of Representatives voted today to link continued funding for the war in Iraq to a commitment to withdraw American troops from that country no later than August 2008. This action really only has symbolic meaning, as President Bush will veto the legislation, and neither house of Congress has enough votes to override a presidential veto.

As expected, Republican lawmakers largely object to the new legislation:

“The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,” Republican Roy Blunt said.

Mr. Blunt, I have two questions for you: First, how should we define “success” in Iraq? Second, what metric, specifically, are we to use to determine when our mission can be deemed a “success”? The burden of proof here is on you, Mr. Blunt, to prove that our continued presence in Iraq is necessary and is worth the soaring prices we are paying.

The American people spoke up in November that they are tired of this war. You seem content to thwart the will of the people. The only thing I ask of you is to tell me exactly what “success” means in Iraq and exactly the benchmarks we are going to use to measure when we have achieved said “success”.

I have yet to hear anything close to a compelling response to either of those questions. Think about what objections to this piece of legislation mean. By the time August 2008 rolls around, we will have been fighting in Iraq for over five years. The Republicans are saying five years of war in the Middle East is not enough. They don’t know exactly how things are going to work out, and they say we need to give the president’s surge plan more time to see what happens, but the one thing they do know is that seventeen months of more war is simply not enough.

I think that message might not go over so well in November 2008.