In the post 'Vietnam and Iraq - a comparison, Daginol stated the following:
'Uh, do you even know why we're in Iraq?
Why we invaded? To remove Saddam Hussein. He's gone. Victory has long been achieved. The mission as accomplished a year ago. The US can't "lose" because we have Saddam in costody'
I would like to quote the US president back to Daginol:
When asked about his apparently premature 'Mission accomplished' speech of May 1st 2003, Bush replied 'A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier that we had achieved an important objective, that we had accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein'
Bush states quite clearly that A as in ONE mission has been accomplished, not THE mission.
Quite clearly this is not the whole goal of the Iraq occupation as Daginol mystifyingly seems to believe.
Other commentators agree with me:
'...in the absence of the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons whose possible existence was the chief argument for war, Saddams murderous cruelty has become the main retrospective justification for the invasion......A damaging shortage of troops, reversals of course on the role of the UN, flip-flops over the employment of former Baath party members, ditto over Iraqi army officers, and countless iterations of the plan for a political transition have also raised serious questions about postwar planning' Roger Cohen, NY Times
[N.B. Cohen was an advocate for the war in Iraq and now recognises the colossal incompetence of the administration to succesfully prosecute this ongoing war]
'Those who expected big economic benefits from the war were, of course, utterly wrong about how things would go in Iraq. But the disastrous occupation is only part of the reason that oil is getting more expensive...thanks to the mess in Iraq — including a continuing campaign of sabotage against oil pipelines — oil exports have yet to recover to their prewar level, let alone supply the millions of extra barrels each day the optimists imagined. And the fallout from the war has spooked the markets, which now fear terrorist attacks on oil installations in Saudi Arabia, and are starting to worry about radicalization throughout the Middle East. (It has been interesting to watch people who lauded George Bush's leadership in the war on terror come to the belated realization that Mr. Bush has given Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted.) Paul Krugman, Editor NY Times
Daginol:
So unless you can envision a scenario where Saddam Hussein is back in charge of Iraq this whole comparison is a bit off.
May I refer anyone reading to the post before this one, 'Bush and Iraq: a leaked confidential transcript. Hot!'
In conclusion, Bush has succeeded in only one objective, the toppling of a tinpot dictator in a weak country that posed no threat to anyone except his own people.
Meanwhile, North Korea, a genuine threat, continues to rack up the number of bombs and delivery systems it has at it's disposal, Pakistan continues to sell its nuclear know how, Osama is still at large, Iraq and Afghanistan are in anarchy, the US army is demoralised and overstretched and the US moral reputation has been shattered with evidence of systematic torture, prisoner abuse and murder.
Mission accomplished?
Mission completely fucked up is more appropriate.
yechydda,