"The Surge Worked"

Conventional wisdom has determined and definitively proclaimed that the surge has worked in Iraq. Further, it has decided that any politician (namely Barack Obama)must also agree with the determination 'they' have made. The media did the same thing with Hillary Clinton earlier, when they insisted she had made a mistake and had to renounce her earlier vote on the Iraq war. How many times can a reporter ask the same question and even demand that you agree with their conclusion. No other answer is apparently possible except 'the surge worked'.

Fortunately for me, nobody cares whether I think the surge worked or not. I, however, will tell you what I think anyway. First of all, what is 'the surge'. The surge has come to mean anything that has taken place that has caused positive developments in Iraq. This is a very strange definition. The surge has become a catch-all for progress in Iraq. With that definition, of course the surge has worked. I, however, still naively cling to the understanding that the surge consisted of 30,000 additional troops that were sent to Iraq. The truth is, under the original surge strategy, it is only a part of what is working in Iraq.

Have conditions improved in Iraq? Absolutely. Why? First of all, President Bush relieved Secretary Rumsfield of his duties. Secondly, the President finally decided to allow Secretary Gates and others to operate differently in Iraq. General Petraeus developed entirely different sets of strategies for continuing the struggle. Sunni and Shiite factions began to tire of the fighting and began to see their self interests differently, and of course 30,000 troops performed superbly. Also, by the way, we began to provide incentives, including financial ones to Sunni and Shiite leaders. Everything together has created a major turn around in Iraq for which we are all grateful. No one can be anything other than awed by the superb work that our troops have done that has contributed to the growing success in Iraq.

The question is, Why does everyone need to submit to the formulaic expression that the media has established as determinative? I do not believe the media does credit to itself when it develops its own talking points and refuses to acknowledge the complexity of the situation in Iraq and the totality of what has contributed to significant progress there. Again, the surge of troops is part of that progress. Why is that so difficult a nuance for the media to understand? Why do they insist that everyone must accept their version of the story?