More dead soldiers than ever, with no political progress

Don't forget: we are winning the [one] war -- on terrorism. But, just in case you do forget that, there's this place called Afghanistan where more troops have been killed this year than any year since the invasion...and there's this other place called Iraq where the same exact thing is true:

Six U.S. troops were killed by insurgents today in “the most lethal [attack] against American forces this year.” The death toll for number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan is at least 101 this year, making it the “deadliest for Americans here since the 2001 invasion.” As SusanG points out, 2007 has also been the deadliest year in Iraq.

I mean, we're winning, it's just that...a lot of our boys are getting killed doing it...and absolutely no political progress is being made...but...

Everybody agrees that military and security measures on their own can only go so far if not buttressed by economic, social and political progress.

The Americans and Iraqi government are well aware of the need to follow up with services - electricity and water supplies are still sporadic - and job-creation schemes if they are to hold the ground they are clearing.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said that next year will be the year of services and reconstruction. At this stage, Iraqis are looking for performance and delivery, not promises and fine words.

One of the main stated objectives of the US troop surge was to clear a space for the Iraqi politicians to enact nation-building legislation and pursue national reconciliation as the cornerstone of the New Iraq.

But virtually none of the key pieces of required legislation has yet been passed by a fractious Iraqi parliament which has been wracked by factional disputes.

There is still no shared and agreed vision of Iraq's future. Kurds and some Shias want a loose, federal arrangement, while Sunnis and some others want a stronger, more centralised state.

It matters. To which Iraq are people signing up with the security forces swearing allegiance?

And:

In September, the GAO review indicated that only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met, four had been partially met and eleven had not been met. In late October, the GAO reported specifically on the 8 political benchmarks pointing out that Iraq had only fully met one, to protect minority rights in parliament, and partially met another, to enact legislation on the formation of regions. The other six remain unmet.

What are our boys dying for? According to King George, it was to create a secure environment so that the following integral issues could be addressed:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

How's that going? Not so well...