The "surge" turns into a prolonged commitment

The increased US troop presence has improved life in Baghdad (based on my reading of my relatively trusted sources). If it continues to do so, it will be sustained ...

WIRED Blogs: Danger Room:

...When the troop 'surge' in Iraq was initially being discussed, it was billed as a temporary increase in forces -- a matter of months. That never seemed all that credible to me. Now, 'the day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq' is owning up, recommending 'that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008,' the Times reports. Count on an admission, pretty soon, that the surge is going to take a lot more than 21,500 troops...

I'm sure the experts knew the "surge" would become a permanent fixture if it seemed to be working, and a "surge" if it was failing. I suspect if it starts to fail it will again be called a "surge". It there are positive results though, we'll need many, many more troops. I wonder where they'll come from.