Are we winning the peace? (whatever that means)

RedState.org takes a argues against metrics in Iraq (anyone want to guess their position on timelines?) . I'll second the general notion that we don't really know what to measure, nor what it means. For instance if we kill twice as many insurgents as last year, are we winning because we've killed twice as many, or losing because there are more insurgents? The usual suspects on both sides will argue their spin. The best bit of the post:

This war is a political endeavor. It will not be won or lost based on hospitals opened, roads secured, KwH generated, clean water produced, or vaccines administered. It is going to be won by Iraqis stepping forward to support their government, by voting, by filling the ranks of security forces, by starting businesses, by investing money in their own country. In these measures, we are winning... and that is why no one who is screaming for metrics is talking about them.

Certainly during our revolution and early development no one was expressing our viability as functions of infrastructure. On the other hand, when you're unemployed in the Iraqi desert without electricity or running water...well you're likely to be miffed. Especially when you had them regularly pre-invasion. Look how NYC freaked out last year when they lost power for a few hours. Anyway, I do approve of keeping metrics, I'm just leery of trying to interpret them. Maybe if we go on a binge of nation-building-exercises we can ascertain which metrics are valuable and which are not. Imagine: learning.