There's a false and underhanded argument style called Moving The Goalposts that I notice a lot. I've been holding my tongue for a while, but it looks pretty established.

Moving The Goalposts(Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
If your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
OK. Remember when the mission was regime change in Iraq? The toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein? That mission was accomplished in about 30 days in which could arguably be called the most well executed invasion in human history. President Bush gave a victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, which made a lot of critics angry as they believed it to be a lie, and that the invading force was actually eradicated as dictated by Baghdad Bob.
So after a time these critics had to give up their fantasy and maybe admit that the Bathe Regeme was not still in power and that the ole Coalition had indeed ousted their beloved Hussein. But they had a simple option to admitting they were wrong. They could just move the goalposts.
They had to invent a new measure of success or failure.

You might remember what it was.
The new measure was killing and/or dissuading former Bathists and Al-Queida terrorists. But because the US Government no longer puts much effort into enemy bodycounts (a Vietnam lesson), these critics could claim that the enemy deaths were a grand total of zero.
After the Second Battle of Fallujah it became clear that Al-Queida was getting dead at a cyclic rate, they quickly threw that metric under the bus. Dead terrorists don't matter, they said. It was very fashionable to say
"Killing terrorists only creates terrorists".
That was their meme. That was their code. They moved the goalposts.

The new metric that they invented was the safety of the short stretch of road between BIAP and The Green Zone, which a few journalists dubbed the "Most Dangerous" road in Iraq. (It wasn't, btw.) They claimed that this short little bit of road was emblematic of the entire country. That pissed me off as I was in country at the time, and I knew that those reporters were exaggerating just to make it sound like they were "in the shit". Someone taking a potshot isn't an "ambush", although they often include it in the stats. That road wasn't all that dangerous. Certainly not the "Most Dangerous".
So the US Military allocated other resources to give a bunch of security to this one little bit of road, as this is the one factor that success was measured by.
But guess what. When it was safe, they claimed it was no longer emblematic. They moved the goalposts again.

Then we have the huge giant metric that critics love to use to measure the success/failure of Civilization vs. Islamofascists. You can already guess it.
US Military Deaths.
Terrorist sympathizers gloat about this number as some sort of end-all-be-all metric of US Success/Failure. Did you notice that every time it reaches a round number they brag by using the word "Milestone".
Milestone?
Like their side accomplished something and reached a goal. How transparent can they be?
OK. So since the other benchmarks or measures of success or failure haven't fit their narrative, they will always have the US Military Deaths metric. Right? They've set that in stone, haven't they?
What if we increase the operations tempo against the enemy and create a surge and announce it widely as The Surge? What if the results of The Surge kill a lot of terrorists and the hyper-observed US death count is lower? Will the critics repent then?
Naw. They'll just move the goalposts again. They'll say that the actual goal isn't killing/disrupting terrorists at a high ratio compared to the US. They'll say that The US Military failed because the Iraqi people and Parliament haven't met their benchmarks fast enough or at all. They'll gloat that The Surge has failed, even though the evidence proves them wrong.

Look at what Harry Reid said at the beginning of The Surge.
"This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq " -- Harry ReidWhen they're proven wrong, they just change the topic to the Iraqi Legislators.
Have you noticed how stories about Iraq have almost disappeared from the news? It couldn't be because reality contradicted their narrative could it?

Well the News should be proclaiming how wrong they were any minute now as of this bit of data:
Iraq Parliament Report Card: 15 of 18 BenchmarksCricket...cricket.
I wonder what the new metric will be?
I've personally heard someone say this gem:
"Bush thought he could go to Iraq and solve all their problems!"
All. Their. Problems.