SURGING TO WHERE? It's impossible to overstate the respect Gen. Petraeus elicits in Washington's chattering classes. Left or right, young or old, journalist or expert, everyone I talk to pulsates with admiration for the guy. And his willingness to call the surge inadequate only enhances that reputation. But even while he inspires mash notes and boxes of chocolate, he's a military guy, and all he can fix -- if he can fix it -- is the country's security situation. He can't rebuild civil society. He can't trigger a political settlement. And while we have a plan of sorts for the military end of the equation (that doesn't seem to be working), we've still got nothing for those underlying conflicts which keep the country from ever regaining stability or coherence. So even if Petraeus succeeds, we're still losing. As Matt writes, "the administration has managed to become totally confused about our objectives in the region, where we're no longer sure if we're fighting Iran or al-Qaeda, if we're encouraging or discouraging sectarian conflict, if we favor Sunnis or Shiites. Under the circumstances, we can't possibly be brokering a viable political settlement; we don't even know what our goals are." Forget a settlement that reaches our goals, we can't even think of one that secures Sunnis and Shiites. It's a real problem. We can talk about the surge all day, but this isn't a military conflict now, and the media has to stop pretending that a change in military strategy constitutes "a plan." --Ezra Klein
