The Commander Guy has spoken (and there are probably volumes of pop-psychology to be written on how he couldn't quite give himself his proper title).
Anyway, here, apparently, is the definition of victory in Iraq: "a country that is stable enough for the government to work, that can defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror, that won't be a safe haven, that will deny the extremists and the radicals.". (A bit of a step down from that messianic vision of a beacon of democracy that was going to transform the Middle East, eh?)
Hussein wasn't going to be an ally in the "War on Terror" (although haven't many turned away from that vague and violent notion of what needs to be done in any case?), but Iraq was not a 'safe haven' for terrorists before the invasion (except for small groups in the no-fly zones), and therefore what, if he won according to the terms he set out, would Bush have achieved?
How would things have improved, on the whole, from the position pre-invasion?
Sectarian violence in Iraq more extensive than Hussein's tyrannical violence, with several years worth of encouragement and training for the extremists and the radicals thrown in along the way? The replacement of a despotic anti-US government with a failing theocratic pro-Iran one? The lost opportunity of Afghanistan, allowing the instigators of 9/11 to remain free?
Even if Bush's scaled-back definition of victory could be realised, could anyone honestly say it had been worth it?
Originally posted by newnickname: The Commander Guy has spoken (and there are probably volumes of pop-psychology to be written on how he couldn't quite give himself his proper title).
Anyway, here, apparently, is the definition of victory in Iraq: "a country that is stable enough for the government to work, that can defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror, that won't be a safe haven, that will deny the extremists and the radicals.". (A bit of a step down from that messianic vision of a beacon of democracy that was going to transform the Middle East, eh?)
Hussein wasn't going to be an ally in the "War on Terror" (although haven't many turned away from that vague and violent notion of what needs to be done in any case?), but Iraq was not a 'safe haven' for terrorists before the invasion (except for small groups in the no-fly zones), and therefore what, if he won according to the terms he set out, would Bush have achieved?
How would things have improved, on the whole, from the position pre-invasion?
Sectarian violence in Iraq more extensive than Hussein's tyrannical violence, with several years worth of encouragement and training for the extremists and the radicals thrown in along the way? The replacement of a despotic anti-US government with a failing theocratic pro-Iran one? The lost opportunity of Afghanistan, allowing the instigators of 9/11 to remain free?
Even if Bush's scaled-back definition of victory could be realised, could anyone honestly say it had been worth it?
Wow, that was a mouthful! Now, it's my turn.
"Allowing the instigators of 9/11 to remain free", you say?
Based on the information reported by Producer Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11", (the bin Ladens) were on a plane Home from the U.S. right after 9/11, while the rest of the country was grounded. According to sources immediately after 9/11, Osama bin Laden was the prime suspect, was he not? Then they switched focus back to Saddam Hussein again, a C.I.A. operative. A man who was trained by our government, and planted into his seat of power by our government! Then, Bush invaded half a dozen countries in the middle east, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Doesn't make much sense, but it seemed to have worked very effectively, given our present state, wouldn't you say?
Those people most directly responsible for 9/11 were also responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, the JFK Assassination, and nearly every other act of "terrorism" which has occured on American soil in the last 50 years. We (or namely our government) committed these acts to ourselves, for political reasons. In politics, there's a saying: "Unless it's an act of God, then it's a conspiracy."
Besides, if you want to see real carnage, just look at Iraq. The 3,000 people killed on 9/11 pale in comparison to the atrocities being committed by our own government on a daily basis, and the number of deaths steadily rising by our own hands in countries across the world, who have never attacked the U.S., nor committed any acts of aggression against the U.S. Just so that we can rob them blind of their resources, while bombing and strip-mining their Homes.
As the "Reichstag Fire" was for Hitler, so, too, was "9/11" for Bush. They were staged events which were implemented for political purposes. Bush used 9/11 as his green light in the eyes of (some of) the American people, though in violation of the U.N., for his so-called "War on Terror". History repeats itself.
And another revised definition, this time of success for 'the surge':
'In unusually candid comments, Mr Campbell also disclosed that American commanders had decided that the criteria for the "success" of the troop surge would be nothing more than a reduction in violence to the level prior to last year's al-Qaeda bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, which destroyed its golden dome.
The destruction of the shrine, one of the most important Shia sites in the world, led to a dramatic escalation in sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia factions, peaking at 3,500 deaths in September last year. Casualty figures had been running at 800 a month before that, a level that few would regard as anything approaching peace.
While the United States military has made little secret of its view that the bloodshed in Iraq can now only be contained, rather than stamped out altogether, the suggestion that 800 murders a month in the country would be a measure of success is an indication of how far the coalition has been forced to reign in its expectations.'www.telegraph.co.uk
