Brooks can't understand the surge

David Brooks says

But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right.

Nice, sneaking the adhominem in there. "Before long, the less imbecilic of the New York Times columnists will admit that they wouldn't know what to write if the Bush PR folks weren't telling them what to write."

Now for an application of some actual reasoning. 1) We have no reason to believe that the current decrease in violence in Iraq is permanent, or whether it is just a pause as the militias regroup. 2) The criteria that Bush laid out for the success of the surge have not been met. 3) The surge isn't over.

But mostly, the "surge is a success" folks aren't playing the game that Brooks thinks or pretends they are. Their game is permanent occupation of Iraq. The ethnic cleansing and abominable levels of violence in 2006 made long term occupation politically untenable. The goal of the surge was to knock the level down to merely revolting levels of violence. It may not have even reached this goal, witness the full court pressure that the Bushistas have put on the press to not report what violence is still occuring in Iraq, and to parrot the 'surge is a success' mantra of the 'create our own history' delusionals.

So to say that surge opponents are dishonest if they won't join Brooks in kissing Bush's ass is dishonest.