An operational definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different result.

By this definition, the Bush administration is insane. In a speech President Bush gave on Sept. 13, he cited the Anbar province of Iraq as a success story and justification for continuing the surge.

That same day, the United States’ most visible supporter in Anbar, Abdul Sattar Rishawi, a sheik who persuaded the local tribes to work with the military to drive al-Qaida out, was killed in a bombing outside his home.

Al-Qaida claimed responsibly and then issued a warning to all other tribal sheiks in the area, threatening to assassinate any who would offer support to U.S. military forces. In addition, al-Qaida also announced they were starting a new Ramadan offensive in memory of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq who was killed last year.

In addition to the problems on the security front, the political progress has essentially stagnated, if not outright self-destructed. First, the oil-revenue sharing legislation – which is seen as pivotal to any lasting peace in Iraq – fell apart, according to a New York Times article appearing on the same day as Bush’s speech.

Despite General David Petraeus’ and Bush’s efforts to present a Iraq moving toward unification thanks in large part to the surge, it seems that Iraq is coming apart at the seams. In his speech, Bush said he had accepted Petraeus’ recommendations and would begin a troop drawdown, with 2,200 Marines leaving without replacements at the end of this month. This is due in part to Bush’s new strategy – a “return on success,” based on Bush’s idea that the “more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.”

Bush’s statement, however, is criticized by those who point out that if the U.S. military will become dangerously overextended if it does not begin a withdrawal. The surge was always meant to be temporary, and the number of troops that Petraeus suggested might be removed from Iraq was 20,000, the amount of the surge.

Despite the rosy picture presented by the general and Bush about the success in Iraq, the Government Accountability Office’s evaluation of the progress in Iraq toward the congressionally mandated benchmarks showed that the Iraqi government had not met 11 of the 18 benchmarks.

While some may criticize me for focusing on the negative and accuse me of wanting to see Iraq as a failed state, there is nothing further from the truth. I believe the mess we have made in Iraq is not one we can walk away from, regardless of how badly we have handled it in the past.

That being said, I think it is time to start seriously questioning why our government is so reluctant to engage in multinational dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors. It seems to me that a failed Iraq would pose as much danger, if not more, to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as Israel and Lebanon.

While the surge may show signs of progress, it seems that the results are only temporary, as Anbar is quickly falling back into chaos. Meanwhile, the government has yet to enunciate a definitive reason for not approaching the problems in Iraq from a diplomatic tack.

Bush made it clear in his latest speech that he fully intends to hand the Iraq problem off to the next president. So my question to all of them is this: What would you do to reverse the current trends in Iraq?

While I fully support a troop withdrawal, I am reminded of what my mother so often told me when I lived at home: If you make a mess, clean it up. Now the question is how are we going to clean up the mess we’ve made in Iraq?

Quincy Miller is a senior in English from Altoona.