Redstate

Agree that publicizing metrics as a PR tactic is dangerous in war. Agree, too, that metrics aren't strategy.

Nevertheless, metrics are a key component in managing any complex process, and I have no doubt (and no data) that our commanders have key metrics that they monitor closely, and that I hope are not discussed with know nothing reporters.

Some want metrics, I think, because we haven't done a very good job of selling our strategic vision, and the President must shoulder some of the blame.

What will total victory in Iraq look like? I've got my ideas, and I think they are worth fighting for, but I think the Administration needs to do a better job of selling theirs.

In WWII, we could all point to and fight for unconditional surrender, but our current struggle isn't so clear cut.

I only buy this if you accept that there are two teams, and you have to play for one or the other.  Of course I would never argue you can win over Cindy Sheehan with metrics.

But there is a squishy middle in this country, love them or hate them, and their opinion really does make a difference.  Public opinion on the war has gone from, what, 75% in favor to 60% opposed?  Now it's fine to say, well that's just the result of the perfidious Democrats spreading lies, but if words can swing public opinion, they can swing it in the other direction too.  Presumably Bush won re-election because enough people shared his vision of reality as compared to the other guys, notwithstanding all the best efforts of Democrats to bring him down.  So what has changed that makes so many people, all of a sudden, accept the competing view?

Despite all the flowery words it's really hard to beat back the impression that metrics are not being offered simply because they wouldn't show anything positive.  That's my honest feeling, at any rate.  I'd love it if the President would stand up and prove me wrong, but if he's taking advice like this diary, I guess he's above all that.

Simple military defeat is/was a piece of cake. Army destroyed, situation over. That was never the point. We wanted security at home. So how will we know when he has achieved it? Or at least a level that doesn't call for us to spend more lives in another country?

gutless, lazy, ignorant, illiterate, equivical, unintelligent, etc. They do not have the focus, desire and determination to excell in their own lives so how can you expect them to be continously supportive of a difficult and complex process like Iraq? Most can't even sit through a movie without talking or wandering out for another tub with extra butter. They are easy prey for the hammering of the MSM trumpeting the Dimo's cut and run howlings. It is the remote control generation.

...kids died.

Haven't you heard?

Look at the volume of "statements of purpose" that have been popping up now that Bush and Cheney have started fighting back.  

Fear not.  

The battle is joined again.  The good guys will win.

I'd add that the only possible positive spin on the senate's actions is that it sets up the PR campaign after the upcoming Dec. elections. Nobody is saying so clearly, but that strikes me as the time when a number of huge "metric" standards come into play.

Namely, it's the excuse for Rumsfeld to step down (don't get me wrong, I don't encourage this and think he's been superb) if he or the POTUS feel this is needed at any time in the second term. It's also the time to begin troop withdrawal, or even better, redeployment. The ongoing Anbar campaign fits the pattern of actions in advance of benchmark dates, and I suspect it will ramp up rather than down for the next month. After that, tapering off all over.

We haven't heard much lately, so I wonder what with the IRISH route issue, and Iraqi army development, that our moves and PR campaign, including enhanced UN activity all begins next month.

Then - look elsewhere.

I wish there was a 529 that could start rolling ads on the Dems such as Clinton, Ried, and others showing them say one thing and then another. And finish the AD with "Do you trust them?"  

Is only being nostalgic for his old war. He served the country in Vietnam but learned all the wrong lessons. Hey guess what, we pulled out of that war instead of winning, Well, it wasn't so bad for us I guess but it filled the Pacific with boat people and

led to the killing fields in Cambodia. Do we really want a similar situation?

 

Hilarious, really.

But when you've lost the massive middle (read independants) calling them gutless, lazy and unintelligent isn't likely to win them back.

You've got less than six months to figure out a way to frame the Iraq war in a way the public can get behind.  After that the 06 primaries and election will have even Senator Brownback asking why he was mislead into this war.

You don't have a lot of control over what takes place on the ground in Iraq during this period so your only real hope is a killer PR push.

Frankly, I seriously doubt that sending the Vice President, perhaps the only guy less popular than President Bush right now, out to stump that the opposition consists of traitors is gonna get the job done.

After Bush won the election, liberals rushed to blame the whole thing on so-called "values voters" who were supposedly tricked into voting against their self-interest because of wedge issues like gay marriage, etc.  We now see the flip side of those arguments.

When the people are on your side, it's a mandate that confirms the correctness of your agenda.  When they're against you, they're a bunch of useless sheep.  Such is the way of the world.

what you're looking for in the GOP web site home page.  Have a look.

be taken advantage of? Shear as long as you can, then eat 'em.

that the notion that "this war is a political endeavor" is completely correct.

But, when it comes to metrics, since we are dealing with a sustained military presence in two foreign countries using an all-volunteer military, the only important metric is recruitment levels.

That number will tell you everything you need to know about perception of the War here at home.  And if they are really low, then you know that enough "bad news" is being heard (through a media filter or otherwise) "on the streets" to keep people from wanting to sign up.

And, addressing the issue of what is heard on the streets is definitely a political issue.  The question becomes how to address that issue?  What do you look at?  How the media covers the war?  What is happening on the ground in Iraq?  What do you change?

In terms of politics, focusing on media coverage of the war exclusively leads too many people to believe that there is something to hide.  What is really needed is an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq.  How deeply Congress needs to look will be revealed to them by that one metric: recruitment numbers.

........a Marine in combat? Or did he ride a desk? I'm jest curious. Thank you.

Ok, here is a serious question: does anyone here know the number of US troops in Germany today? Isn't it like 200,000? If so, then what is the annual rate of attrition among those stationed in Germany?

Might I suggest  By: LITBMueller  

that the notion that "this war is a political endeavor" is completely correct.

But, when it comes to metrics, since we are dealing with a sustained military presence in two foreign countries using an all-volunteer military, the only important metric is recruitment levels.

That number will tell you everything you need to know about perception of the War here at home.

(Emphasis added)

Might I suggest that, those who want to paint the War as a failure would want us to look at recruitment figures, see that they're lower then they should be...and then stop looking!

Those who want to paint...well, let's call them what they really are-- War Failure Cheerleaders...would then portray this evidence as proof of a failed war effort and a failed President.

Of course, here at Redstate, we won't let "War Failure Cheerleaders" stop there.  No, we insist they go on, and look at other metrics and figures.

• For example, we point out that booming economies historically make it harder for the military to recruit.  Plus, we'd also point out that the MSM's gloomy (and often misleading) portrayal of how well we're really doing in Iraq likely had an impact in the lower recruiting nunbers.  So, in summary, when the War Failure Cheerleaders try to cherry pick a statistic and view it in isolation, we'll annoyingly insist that they not ignore the Big Picture.  (They should return to DailyKos to cherry pick).
  
• But THEN, to really be annoying, we'll ask why retention numbers are so good. Why units in Iraq and Afghanistan are reenlisting so many soldiers, if the war is indeed as gloomy as the War Failure Cheerleaders say it is?  I mean, who's more likely to be disillusioned by the "quagmire" of Iraq then those who have been "stuck" directly in it?  Well then, why do they keep reenlisting?

So yes, LITB, you may suggest that recruitment figures is the "only important metric."

If you don't mind us smacking you silly (verbally, or course) and laughing at you, that is.

people would actually understand if Centcom started putting battalion S-3s in front of the cameras to talk about day to day operations in their respective areas? They could put a division G-3 out there to say that our objective is to secure Anbar province, and you'd better believe that at an operational level, which in Iraq is probably at squad level in many places, everybody knows what the metrics are. How can they possibly share that information?

 We tried this in Vietnam: it was called the 5 o'clock Follies by the press corps, and anytime something happened that would seem to contradict operations, that event would be used to discredit briefing officers. And this when we routinely had regiment/brigade sized operations. Do you think that the current press corps hasn't read Halberstam's The Powers that Be?

 Political objectives have been met at every turn. The military objectives cannot be discussed openly with anyone, not from fear of failure but from routine security procedures to protect small-sized infantry operations. The day to day grind that Streiff pointed out here is the only metric that could be meaningful to laymen- every school rebuilt, every road and tactical position secured, etc. What the press wants is another Tet, and the best way they can get it is by forcing the military into the trap of putting things in terms simple enough for the average person. The moment something happens to contradict that, they'll be filing for Pulitzers.

veteran, though I'm not sure how that makes his statement more credible or less credible.

Despite all the flowery words it's really hard to beat back the impression that metrics are not being offered simply because they wouldn't show anything positive.

And that it exactly my point.

If I thought there were any number of people who really had an interest in the methods of measurement showing improvement I'd be in favor. Of course, if that were the case all the people screaming for measurement would know what is in the weekly update on the DoD website and presumably we'd see this info in the papers and on TV. But they don't and we don't.

So I think the whole issue is dishonest to it's very core.

A way to measure progress.  The reason the public is turning against the war in Iraq is that the Bush Administration has not done a particularly good job (I'm in a charitable mood this afternoon) of defining victory.  I think we are winning, but I have no idea how the Bush Administration defines it.  A stable democracy that can defend itself?  A good concept, but how does that actually look on the ground? And why is the American military necessary to achieve that? This is what needs to be articulated.  You may be right that if specific metrics are put forward they will be used as a basis for criticism.  But if they are not put forward and "victory" remains illusively undefined, the public and politicians of both parties will continue to turn against this war.

2006 Republican bumper sticker?

then why the post?

That said, I would be interested in the link to the website.

Think you're absolutely right. I posted on this in another diary, but thought I'd respond here.

Though I'm perhaps not as bullish on whether we are winning the war, I am certainly not of the belief that we are overwhelmingly losing.

But to your main point, I think the single biggest shortcoming of the Bush Administration with respect to communicating with the public on the war effort, is their curious inability to define victory in any sort of easily understood fashion.

There already is a debate about how and why we went IN to Iraq. I think the answer to that will be debated for decades to come.

But we should be able to define victory. We should be able to define when the mission is accomplished.

I mean, what ... is ... victory? The vast majority of Americans couldn't tell you. I'm not sure if I could.

I think a set of easily understood metrics, if such things exist, would go a long way to reassuring the public that we are on the right path.

2006 Republican Bumper Sticker

2006 Donk sticker: "Elect Another Baby Killer for Peace"

You are a big, fat, blubbery, blue whale of a chub.  Where is your icon?

Clayton?!?!?!

Whatever your place on the political spectrum, it is very hard to argue that the first year of this war was prosecuted in an acceptable manner.  From the looting to the disbanding of the Iraqi Army to the ever-changing role of the Shiite militias, the DOD has never evinced having had a postwar plan.  I truly believe that they did not have one, but it is possible that whatever plan they had was bungled horribly.  

Now, the last six months have been a bit better, largely I believe, because professional soldiers have been listened to more and political operatives such as Feith, Wolfowitz, et al are no longer driving the bus.  Since Rumsfeld was the man who set the troop levels, was responsible in the end for the plan, and certainly empowered his subordinates, I think the job he did can be characterized as "poor" or you could say he was completely blind-sided by events.  Either way, "superb" is too a strong word for his performance.  

Strieff, you are too cynical - beyond those few who want defeat and those who want to wound Bush, by far the bulk of Americans want the US to win in Iraq.  It is these people that who have been turning against the war that you should be worried about.  And how do you get them to support the war, without answering the likes of Old Dad, Steven Donegakl and Balfour?  

The average America needs to understand what our goals are (what a "victory" is), how far away the goalposts are, and whether we are doing an effective job of driving the ball forward.  It seems to me that the Administration should focus on that, and not simply attacking the naysayers.  The Administration has painted itself into this corner by not preparing the American people for the war that we've actually got.

You yourself have suggested the following metrics of victory - why can't the Administration push the numbers on them?

It is going to be won by Iraqis stepping forward to support their government, by voting, by filling the ranks of security forces, by starting businesses, by investing money in their own country.

BTW, it seems to me that you've overlooked the most crucial metric in determining progress - what are the levels by which Sunnis are stepping forward to support their government, by voting and by filling the ranks of security forces?  The Sunnis are Iraqis too and right now there is a civil war going on, which will end only as the Shias and Kurds work out a political accomodation with the Sunnis.

The Administration has painted itself into this corner by not preparing the American people for the war that we've actually got.

I think they have made it clear for a long time how much work it would take (the phrase long, hard slog comes to mind). The problem is I don't think you can prepare the American people for war any more. War doesn't go stick to the plan or operate on a timetable and you don't rebuild countries in months. Many (most?) people just don't have the capacity to deal with that.

I think you have a point about it being difficult to prepare Americans for war, but that has always been the case, other than Korea.  We have been traditionally reluctant to get involved in entanglements abroad, and Democratic presidents practically dragged us into WWI, WWII and Vietnam.  Look at the shit Clinton got for going into Kosovo as well.  That's why Dems can easily make some people think that there's case that Bush pulled a fast one in shifting the War on Terror from OBL to Iraq.

You are right that war can easily be a long, hard slog, and that turns alot of Americans off.  While you can find some references to a long, hard slog, the war was promoted as more of a cakewalk - being an easier pill for Americans to swallow, as you point out.  I think this is one of the key reasons that Dubya's father and Clinton both decided that it was better to try contain and outlast Saddam than to try to know him off by means of an invasion.

I suspect that the Administration also really expected it would be much easier than it has been; otherwise, we would have seen much better planning for the occupation.  That's why even Bush is acknowledging that reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war.

The morphing purposes of the war have also affected the Administration's credibility.  Maybe this exercise would have held us back from invading Iraq, but I think the Administration would be in a much better position now for continuing the war if it had put much more effort into explaining the goals of the war, and why the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Open your favorite search engine and type DoD.

the President has stated what victory meant and would be.  I will grant that due to all the noise the message could have been repeated a bit more often, however that does not diminish the fact that the message was delivered at least once a year since we have been a war.

but Rumsfeld is going to be viewed as the most successful and influential Secretary of Defense since the inception of that Department.

I hope you guys run on the war in 2006. I'm sure it will work as well as you guys did running on anti-terrorism in 2002.

now here you are involved in a discussion on the subject and you haven't even taken the time to find out what is published every Friday.

On a lighter note, I concede your point on capital gains.

your point.

You seem to be saying that the administration will be allowed to set some number of benign goals and we're done. That is naive in the extreme because the goals will be denigrated just as the past two elections were. So I don't see how the Administration wins by cooperating in this farce.

As to the Sunnis, they need to look to themselves. They may very well be the one ethnic community in Iraq begging us to stay at the rate they are burning their bridges. I don't believe in appeasing three-year-olds, squeaky wheels, or terrorists.

Why would we rate our success based on the participation of 20% of the population while ignoring the participation of 80%? A prime example of a goal that really means nothing in the context of our withdrawal from Iraq and means everything in the context of declaring Iraq a failure.

but I make that suggestion in all seriousness.  You can assume all you want, but, honestly, I'm not interested in failure.  While I may not agree with the reasons for why we went into the war (stated or otherwise), I do agree that we need to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it (which is, I suppose, a base line measure of success).  Failure, for me, is the continuing loss of life: both our troops, and innocent Iraqis, and I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle can disagree with that.

I'm not interested in cherry picking, but I still think that recruitment numbers are the numbers to be looking at.  As to your points, I happen to disagree that any low recruitment numbers are due to a "booming economy," as the "boom" is more in the housing and stock markets, and is more of a "boom" for the higher income brackets.  For most people, wages are static while the cost of living (which has gotten a real spike from oil and gas prices) continues to increase.  There is job growth, but it is uneven, and not very high.  So, I doubt people are staying home because the economy is so great.

As for retention, of course that is high: this is a time of war, with a volunteer military.  I have friends who have served and returned quite voluntarily because they do not want to let down their buddies, or the country.  That is a great thing, and I'm sure that there is a high proportion of people today who feel the same way.

I am NOT suggesting here that those numbers be held out as examples for the public, or anything like that.  What I AM suggesting is that if Congress is serious about wanting a metric for how the war effort is going, they should look at recruitment numbers.  Then, they can address what they see as the problem (if they determine there is one).  They can address what they see as a faulty MSM, or they can address or question exactly is going on over there, or do whatever they want to do.

it goes to not having a clue as to what you are measuring.

Right now over 90% of the Army has high school diplomas granted by a traditional high school, not GEDs not some "alternative" school. Nationally, that number is in the high 70s/low 80s depending on who does the counting. If you want recruiting to be a measure of success what stops the services from removing all impediments to enlistment that aren't set in law? Would that make you happy? Would it produce a desirable outcome?

I'm not playing a game of gotcha here.  My honest opinion is that it is foolish for any government or business, or, heck, even a family buying a new home, to get involved in a major investment without some sort of ways to measure its performance.  That's just common sense.

And, let's be honest, Iraq is now an investment.  In  time, money, and human lives.  To simply plow forward without measuring how well or badly that investment is going is silly.

If you are going to treat this as investment, carried out by an all voluntary military with contractors that also rely on volunteers, then you need to see how many people are actually volunteering.  Just like a CEO, if those numbers are low, then you need to ask "why?"  If your accounting dept. (in this case, the military recruiters) keep "fudging the numbers," you need to ask "why?"  

Changing recruitment targets, lowering targets, etc., are just that: fudging the numbers.  And, no, it wouldn't make me happy.  It makes me worried!  Because, at some point the situation will cross a certain lines, where the ability relieve battle weary troops deteriorates, where the ability to recruit candidates to qualified candidates to fill skilled positions deteriorates.

Case in point: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/national/18recruit.html?pagewanted=print

What you are measuring is twofold: (1) public perception of the war; and (2) how long you will be able to continue the current effort/strategy without making changes.

Seems worthy to me.

OK. I'm ready, willing, and happy to listen.

So for those of us looking for some clarity, could you just articulate that definition of victory that the President has spoken about once or so a year?

I know about the desire to democratize Iraq, pass the constitution, vote, etc. But the overriding impediment to us leaving is the security issue (assuming the country doesn't break out into a low level civil war in which a political problem would then still exist).

So what must be achieved on the security side for us to declare victory? What is an acceptable status level for the insurgency and/or the terrorists?

Can we leave if we have NOT killed or captured all the terrorists and/or insurgents?

And, if we feel like the Iraqi military is at an acceptable level and the insurgency/terrorists are under control, and we leave, and subsequently soon discover that the insurgency/terrorists are still fighting fiercely, would that be viewed as having squandered victory? Would that be viewed as having surrendered to the terrorists since we left and they are still there?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I suspect that many Americans don't either. I'm happy to listen to any explanation.

You suggest that the President has articulated an answer to some or all of these types of "victory defining" issues. If so, it would be very helpful if you could articulate, in plain English, what he has said.

Maybe provide a link or two. I'm sure there are many.

Would be very helpful.

listening. Or rather you are imposing your own goalposts on someone else's playing field.

So what must be achieved on the security side for us to declare victory? What is an acceptable status level for the insurgency and/or the terrorists? Iraqi police in every city (BTW, did you know the last time an Iraqi police station was either overrun by or abandoned to insurgents was in Mosul in December?). Iraqi troops qualitatively/quantitatively superior to the insurgents and able to initiate and carry out their own operations. Iraqi troops on parity with Iran, Syria and Turkey to be able to protect their territorial integrity.

Can we leave if we have NOT killed or captured all the terrorists and/or insurgents?

Yes. Why not? However I am willing to wage a substantial sum of money that if the week after we leave a terrorist attack takes place in Iraq most of the left and all of the media will be declaring Iraq a failure and accusing Bush of cutting and running for political motives.

And, if we feel like the Iraqi military is at an acceptable level and the insurgency/terrorists are under control, and we leave, and subsequently soon discover that the insurgency/terrorists are still fighting fiercely, would that be viewed as having squandered victory?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by fiercely and who you're talking about. If the Iraqi army were capable of coordinated operations I'd call leaving with the level of resistance that  exists today a victory. I don't suspect the people calling for a withdrawal will.

the Sunnis play along - that`s why we need to measure their participation, and that`s the only really meaningful mwasure of success.  

The Administration is just as responsible for the farce, as you call it, because the only meaningful goal is a united country, or at least a resigned federation, so meeting other goals has been relatively simple and rather empty, right?  They ain`t got a united country yet because the Sunnis have been ousted and had the tables turned by the Shias.  That`s why there`s a civil war, right?

didn't buy that argument in 1865 and I don't see why we'd buy it now.

I guess I missed the civil war there, must've been my meds.

listen will not listen.  I find it unbelievable that you express that you want meaningful debate but are too lazy to search for information yourself.  These are just a few of what I found regarding what the President and Vice President have said concerning his strategy for the WoT and Iraq with a simple Google search for "Bush Strategy for Victory in Iraq".  There are over 600 entries listed regarding remarks made by the White House concerning the WoT and/or Iraq in one place.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050625.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050308-3.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030907-1.html

It would appear that the White House has been talking about these issues more than I even gave them credit for and indeed the message has been drowned out in the noise.

NYT article, read David Chu's remarks. I know him and a close friend of mine is his deputy. The GAO doesn't know butterscotch from baby poop on this.

Where do you think the military goes to recruit "roadside bomb defusers," how many off the street people meet the requirements for Special Forces? In both cases, very, very few. In both cases the military has relied on in-service recruiting. In fact, for most of its history the Army has not accepted people into SF who were not already non-commissioned officers.

And no, in the case of recruiting you don't have to ask why because why doesn't mean anything and why doesn't fill boots.

The idea that the GAO could employ someone who could say something as pathetically stupid as "The aggregate recruiting numbers are rather meaningless," said Derek B. Stewart" just beggars the imagination.

And to characterize changing enlistment standards that are set by the Army based on supply and demand of labor as "fudging the numbers" just goes to make my case as to why the real agenda here is ensuring that despite a win in Iraq it will still be possible to characterize the administration as failing.

My lord, thanks for the effort. Any Google Monkey can hit the Internet and look up speeches. My 8 year old nephew could find that.

That's not what we're talking about. I thought this was a diary on "Metrics".

And all I was asking for, and I think Streiff provided some useful thoughts, was insight into what actual Metrics the American people - not military specialists, not policy wonks, and not partisan talking points - could use to assess whether we are on the path to achieving our mission.

Everyone in America knows that our goal is support democracy in Iraq, have a vote, get a constitution, etc. Everyone has heard that over and over and over.

And Google Monkey's can find just that sort of commentary in a moments notice. As you did.

What is generally difficult to find, however, is a well articulated argument or debate on what Metrics need to be achieved in order for the US to hand over control to Iraqis.

How large or small of an insurgency are we willing to accept in Iraq and still leave? Can we leave if there are still 5,000 terrorists/insurgents in Iraq? 1,000?

How few Iraqi civilian casualties at the hands of the terrorists/insurgents are we willing to accept while still getting out?

In short, when as Americans, do we know that Iraq is secure? Or do we just wait for the government to tell us?

Yes, we know, "We're helping Iraqis build a free nation." Give us some quantitative metrics to assess things as opposed to qualititative statements.

It would be helpful.

the story is clearly not on metrics it is one the profound stupidity of metrics and why the Administration would be cretinous to get roped into that discussion.

It would be helpful.

... no, it would be to a very high degree the precise opposite of helpful.

We can never acheive a level of 100% security, obviously, but I agree with your assertion that we won our 1st goal.  But that was only one step of the journey.  I also wonder what that level of true accomplishment will be...

Fair enough. I think you are right to point out the downside of committing to any given set of metrics.

But how, then, do you suggest the Bush Administration convince the 60-65% of Americans that "disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

I mean, he's given speeches. Many speeches as an earlier poster most helpfully linked to. Speaking in generalities doesn't seem to persuading the majority of Americans though.

So, if the Administration (perhaps rightly) is not willing to commit to any metrics, and his speeches to the American public don't seem to persuade the majority of Americans, what is the President to do from the standpoint of communicating and leading this country on the war?

Or is he just at the mercy of events on the ground, and has to ride it out?

If there were a measurement that 1) accurately measured something and 2) was uniformly accepted I might be more inclined. Call me cynical, I don't see that option as being available.

Absent that philosopher's stone, I don't see what good a measurement is going to do.

On the political side, the question is not merely disapprove of the conduct of the war, the question is why they disapprove. And equally there is the question of where that fits on their Maslow's heirarchy. I submit that a lot of the disapproval is from people, like a lot on this site, who believe we need to to more. I submit that given a volunteer military and a an extremely low casualty rate that this is not a frontburner issue with very many people.

So it boils down to whether Frist and Hastert can keep their caucuses unified to support the effort. If significant Republican members of congress start peeling off then there is reason for concern but absent control of either house there isn't much the Dems can do but gripe and contrary to what they apparently believe they won't be treated well in 2006 if they go too far out here.

But ultimately Bush is like every president in a war. He's riding a tiger. He's fine until he tries to get off.

I had never seen that ad before, why was it not passed around?  maybe I just missed it...  

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. When you wrote:

"I submit that given a volunteer military and a an extremely low casualty rate that this is not a frontburner issue with very many people."

Are you referring to the war in Iraq when you say you think "this is not a frontburner issue with very many people"? If so, you have me confused.

Maybe you're simply referring to "Metrics" and arguing that it's not a frontburner issue with very many people. That, I might believe.

Certainly, you don't honestly believe that the overall war in Iraq is not a frontburner issue for people.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your statement.

care about them.  No one really likes Zarqawi or the other foreign fighters except for other pan-Islamists.  The Sunnis are fighting to be included; as long as we are there fighting the Shias` and Kurds` battles for them, they have no incentive to reach a poltical deal with the Sunnis.

And a political deal is needed, since we decided long ago not to staff this invasion with sufficient troops to create stability in all of the Sunni triangle.

And sorry, but did you realize that by pushing the Sunnis out of power and disbanding the military, we`ve handed the country to those who want most to carve it up?  The Shias and Kurds have all the oil.  The Sunnis are fighting to amke sure they get something - they used to have a positive vision of a united Iraq (oppresssive under Saddam, granted!), but now all they have as a negotiating tool is to show they can be spoliers.

in the new government?

Excuse me for jumping in,, but wWe'll know we are having success at this nation-building exercise if the Sunnis are turning away from violence and are being included in the political process.  Until they are in, all the elections and Constitutions are great, but are meaningful only to those who are included.  

When a political solution is reached, the Sunnis will stop their IEDs.  Until then, we should recognize that the presence of our troops is a partial disincentive to the Shias and Kurds to negotiate - we take some of the heat for them.

Related metrics would be the number of Shia-run torture centers shut down by the US, a decline in the numbers of Shia and Sunnis killed by dead squads, and a reversal of the strong trend toward sectarian neighborhoods.