With the protests around the world marking the anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, Bush is claiming that things are getting better in Iraq.
Most people I'm assuming are familiar with the stated objectives of PNAC.
But what is the grand objective of whoever plotted this war?
When you get fantasists like Bush claiming that things are 'going well' in Iraq, surely that begs the question,
'measured against what criterion?'
In order to claim success or failure on any undertaking, there has to be a terms of reference against which stated objectives can be subsequently measured.
There is a nonsensical overall 'aim' of a 'war against terrorism'
Can anyone seriously claim that there is less terrorism now than there was immediately prior to 9/11?
Can anyone state in an objective manner that the world is now more safe than it was 12 months ago? 24 months ago?
Or more dangerous?
By the same criterion, is life better in Iraq than it was a year ago?
Let's look at some examples:
Electricity is infrequent (three hours a day against 23 under Saddam - Note, Bremer is claiming otherwise), but it is free for the moment.
Sewage is untreated, and water borne disease is rife.
The cost of food has soared.
But wages have increased and you can buy white goods such as fridges but not the electricity to power them.
People dare not go out after dark for fear of being robbed or murdered.
Oil is now flowing at near the levels that Saddam was allowed to produce under UN sanctions.
The US army rountinely kicks down peoples doors and humiliates or arrests innocent people before releasing them without a word of apology.
Insurgents are flocking to join militias that will take action against the occupying US force some sooner than later.
And yet there are pockets of prosperity springing up.
Simmering ethnic tensions have been largely contained so far, but for how long?
The list goes on.
Bu the question remains.
How do we know that Iraq is doing well or badly?
What are the criteria?
yechydda,