Questionable military

Both Afganistan and Iraq are obviously and highly questionable. It's hard to call Afganistan a success since there still isn't a viable government in the country, nor has the Taliban really been destroyed. If the US and the UN where to pull out, the Taliban would be back in power within a year. And the goal of the Iraq war was to destroy Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs, an impossible goal because the stockpiles didn't exist in the first place.

In saying that Bush has been militarily succesfull you have bought into the after the fact revision of the goals to match whatever actually happened.

Substitute the word Carville (or pick your poison) for Rove and the point sticks just as well. It is what American politics has become for all. Mindspeak, doublespeak, repetition. Good and Plenty Good and Plenty...For the Rich for big business...Good and Plenty Good and Plenty...For big government for welfare handouts...Good and Plenty Good and Plenty... woooooooo, wooooooooo... The article is only biased because it challenges your particular biases. You are brainwashed by the other side my friend.

Now there is a non-argument. Your trying to claim that Bush is OK because he really isn't any more evil then the other side. This argument fails because it isn't valid even when it's right, and is clearly wrong when applied to the Bush White House.

And in any case, your brainwashed by the other side argument is really silly when applied to a Republican. I've been biting at the bit for years for a chance to vote for McCain, but I'd vote to put Clinton back in office before I would vote for Bush.

Jay

[link|http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20030344.txt|Gen. Franks briefing on 3/22/2003]:

You know, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, my boss, yesterday outlined the military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let me review them with you.

First, end the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country.

Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks.

Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction.

Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens.

Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people.

And last, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

#1 done.
#2 not done (due to faulty assumptions, bad intelligence, twisted intelligence, Saddam being lied to, whatever).
#3 in progress, but may have been made worse by the invasion.
#4 dunno. Apparently there's little evidence that Iraq was directly involved in terrorist networks (outside of well-known support of actions against Israel).
#5 possibly in progress. Libya's giving up its WMD programs and breaking up Khan's nuclear network may (or may not) have turned out the way it did without the invasion.
#6 pretty much done.
#7 done.
#8 in progress, but under a great deal of strain for various reasons.

It looks like the military did an OK job in meeting its stated goals - they weren't completely successful nor unsuccessful. If you consider how many were predicting it would go (tens of thousands of US casualties due to urban siege warfare, etc.), they were amazingly successful in toppling the regime with as few casualties as they've suffered.

Note, I'm not arguing against those who say the invasion was a mistake in this post, just trying to remind us of what the stated military goals were.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!