It depends on what the definition of "success" is

BILL KRISTOL, earlier today: McCain advocated the surge, defended the surge. It was unpopular; people thought…two-thirds of his own campaign wanted him to abandon his position on Iraq. He stuck with it. He showed guts, he showed intelligence. The surge is now working, very, very well. And McCain, Republicans, like it.

The Surge, by definition, has FAILED — the stated intent was to create a situation where the factions in Iraq would negotiate an arrangement that would permit the government to operate effectively and democratic reforms to take root — that has NOT happened. Therefore, anything else going on in Iraq is irrelevant — if there were ZERO US troops and Iraqi civilians being killed, the surge would still, by definition, be a failure, because the factions have not even attempted to settle, the government is ineffective, and the democratic reforms can’t take place.

If you enter the Daytona 500, the obvious intent is to finish 500 miles and be in first place at the end of the race. If you finish 495 miles, you can’t claim victory. If you finish 499.99999 miles you can’t claim victory. If you finish second, you can’t claim victory. Why, then, is this administration allowed to keep changing the definition of success and claim the surge is working, when the stated intent has not come close to being realized?