Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army/ Petty Officer 1st Class Michael Larson

It will be tempting to judge today's pullback of American troops from Iraqi cities by the relative calm--or lack thereof--that ensues in its wake. That's how al Qaeda wants the world to judge the scene, and, accordingly, the group and its allies have pulled out all the stops to step up violence on the ground. Four U.S. soldiers were killed on Monday and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in violence across Iraq in the last week. But if that's how we are to weigh success in Iraq, we must recognize that any significant redeployment will always be played by the enemy to look like failure.

The better questions to ask are: Did our commander on the ground make a situation-based decision to deploy per the exact letter of the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq? Or was he pressured by the administration to redeploy early from cities such as Mosul that only weeks ago appeared candidates for a go-slow approach? Are we redeploying in the interests of long-term security and stability, or are we moving troops to satisfy President Obama's politicking with key constituencies? And, finally, are our actions making America stronger or weaker in the eyes of our adversaries?

The answers to these questions will be clear in the coming weeks. If the situation deteriorates, we will need to consider redeploying U.S. troops to restore security; if the Iraqis are game, will the president be willing? If the Iranians step up interference, will the Obama administration push back? I suspect the answer is no and that my colleague Michael Rubin is right: Obama has embraced the "anti-surge." His definition of success will not be built on Iraqi reality, but American politics. We'll see soon enough.

Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI.