How can “the surge” be successful when U.S., Iraq, have HUGELY different definitions of “success”?

First, when will clueless Iraq war supporters EVER realize this ONE BASIC FACT: The Iraqi government’s interests are divergent, sometimes radically divergent, from ours? The whole idea of “success” for the “surge” goes right down the crapper when the principals involved have hugely different ideas of success in the first place:

Gen. Petraeus and his brain trust have devised the best possible Plan F, given the resources available to the Pentagon and declining patience for the war at home. But the Achilles heel of this latest effort is the Maliki government. It is becoming increasingly clear to all in Baghdad that its interests — seeking power and treasure for its Shiite backers — diverge sharply from those of the U.S.-led coalition. Even if Gen. Petraeus’ plan succeeds on the streets of the city, it will fail in the gilded palaces of the Green Zone. Maliki and his supporters desire no rapprochement with the Sunnis and no meaningful power-sharing arrangement with the Sunnis and the Kurds. Indeed, Maliki can barely hold his own governing coalition together, as evidenced by the Sadr bloc’s resignation from the government this week and the fighting in Basra over oil and power.

Plan F will fail if (or when) the Maliki government fails, even if it improves security. At that point, we will have run out of options, having tried every conceivable strategy for Iraq. It will then be time for Plan G: Get out.

And, if that's not enough, our own definition of “success” continues to be elusive a deliberately shifted target :

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

Tying the two articles together only reinforces what anybody who's not a mindless war hawk knows: We've been training guerillas and calling it “success.” Beyond that, you have a president who’s too stupid and a vice-president who’s too bull-headed to admit we’ve been played as patsies. Again.