Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.

Learn what Halberstam, et al had been warning about. Is this not "Mission Accomplished"? No, Halberstam wrote this in "The Best and the Brightest" in 1972. Deja vue because, well, did you even know about an essential strategic objective, need for a smoking gun, and an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective? And yet that was the lesson of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, and history.

Read about the battle of Ap Bac in 1962 that demonstrated why Nam would not be a winnable war. Notice the Iraqis and Maliki's government are doing this same thing. Notice back then how many even in The Cellar did not recognized a situation that created Vietnam was creating "Mission Accomplished" - complete with a lying president.

Also notice Urbane Guerrilla, et al are promoting this reasoning that kept Nam ongoing for seven years after the Wise Men (just like the Iraq Study Group) told Johnson that Nam could not be won. But ‘big dic’ reasoning from Gens LeMay and Westmoreland continued to be promoted. Westmoreland so in denial as to proclaim fundamental military doctrine did not apply to Nam.

View posts from last summer – ie June 2006. That was America’s last (and desperate) hope to create a "Mission Accomplished" victory. One year ago is when "Mission Accomplished" could no longer be won because George Jr, Rumsfeld, etc refused to even give the troops what was requested (ie enough troops). Even more appauling, they were doing the exact same thing that undermined Swartzkopf fabulous military victory in 1991. I could not believe it. Would Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fieth, Wolfowitz, etc make in 2003 the exact same mistake they made in 1991? Yes!

The Cellar (and this thread) are a history of what you should have known then when it was posted. Follow many posts. Some are based in military doctrine and the lessons of history. Others just know we must be winning because Gen Odierno was executing heavy artillery attacks every night. Like in Nam, where the myopic saw successful artillery attacks as an indication of victory, instead, those who understood basic military doctrine (and especially how to fight an insurgency) knew those artillery barrages only demonstrates how badly "Mission Accomplished" was being lost while effectively recruiting for the enemy.

Some posts not only warned of impending failures. Also provided repeatedly are underlying reasons why. Rumsfeld could not find Generals to staff his operation - had to reach so far down into the ranks to find Gen Sanchez. Gen Garner all but refused to continue. "Mission Accomplished" (and Rumsfeld) were carrer destroyers; that well known to those educated in military doctrine that long ago.

What is common to all above? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In this case, those wacko extremists kept makinng the same mistakes again and again. Their political agendas (ie America does not do nation building) replaced intelligence. they are that dumb and that much driven by their extremist rhetoric. And we let them.

I disagree with that, Glatt, and say better never than at all. Who in a democracy has any business bowing to a fascism? You may be among the defeated, but why should I join you in that ugly stew? Why can't you be like me instead?

We do understand the nature of our foes, do we not? -- oppressive, repressive, hostile to democracy, the one legitimate governmental form and the one most conducive to a wealthy society. Nor is this a separate war; it is an integral part of the GWOT, and is most properly spoken of as a "campaign" -- a fraction of the wider war.

From the Washington Post of 11 May 2007: So why are we in Iraq, why have we permitted the Taliban to take back 50% of Afghanistan, and when do we go after bin Laden? Apparently Cheney still thinks Americans are so dumb as to think Iraq had something to do with 11 September. But then almost one in three Americans still supports Pres Cheney and his band of wackos. So yes, some Americans are still that woefully deceived. But when do we go after bin Laden?

You favor an invasion of Pakistan? How many troops will it take?

So your philosophy is that we should bomb the hell out of them until they love us?:rolleyes:

And there's the Clean Break Document written by some very familiar people directly involved with the Iraq war.

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. "

And in an unsurprising accord with tw's usual pathology, he believes some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. This despite my severally-repeated remark that while I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.

Tw's so full of It that it's dripping out the top.

Turning to Glatt: which outcomes are acceptable, one way or the other? That they love us, or that they become absent?

Then UG...

Why are we there?

You mean you weren't paying ANY attention? I've commented more than once on why we're there: a democracy prospers best in a world full of other democracies (an indisputable point, I think; not even those who disagree with me out of sheer mindless reflex try it) and having an actual democracy (in whatever degree that exceeds that of the other regimes about the Great Oil Patch) in control of a quarter of the world's oil reserves can be nothing but good, right?

That Iraq is liberated and remains liberated from the dictator's iron boot is the one, the only, the preeminently important thing. The list of dead fascists who tried impeding this liberation matters not at all -- except of course to democracy-haters and fascism-lovers. By their actions ye shall know them. [Hint: they're the ones who push for anything other than a US & Allies victory.]

You don't have to believe Iraq did 9-11 to desire its liberation. Where's any connection between the two? I don't see one.

UG, the people didn't want us there, dont want us there, and are no happier now than they were. I'm all for freedom and democracy - much more than you are, if you support Bush - but there was NO justification for going into Iraq. If they wanted Saddam out, they could have kicked him out themselves. Just look at the state Iraq is in now. We're much more powerful than Saddam was; if they can take us on, they could have taken him on.

It's not our responsibility to police the world.
Dictatorships are bad. Turning America into one, and a militaristic and aggressive one at that, is even worse.

This is fact. Many American still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

In 2003, 70% of Americans thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks.

In 2005, 24% of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9-11.

I can't find results for 2007, but I'm sure there are still a few morons out there.

But UG doesn't know any of them. How could he not know 24% of Americans?

Well, glatt, I never thought that. And I still don't know anybody who does. Guess my friends and acquaintances are all among the smarter three-quarters, if HM's figure is not pulled out of thin air.

The links in my post (#551) show where those figures came from.

glatt demonstrates how Americans believed and many still believe Saddam is complicit in 11 September. But even UG had that opinion in Aug 2005. In 2005, he was lumping Saddam, Al Qaeda, and all those other 'enemies' in a monolithic Islamoterrorism that would attack the US. Urbane Guerrilla once had 11 September, bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and Saddam as a monolithic enemy that America must 'fix'. His 'Them verses Us' mentality justified by a political agenda rather than facts.

Next he will re-educate us: North Vietnam was a surrogate for monolithic communism of China and USSR. Urbane Guerrilla defines terror to include 11 September. Suddenly Iraq has no relationship to terror attacks on 11 September? One can do this when a political agenda justifies rewriting history - history of what UG has posted.

Also on UG's list of countries responsible for 11 September and Bali Indonesia: The world according to UG: all Islamoterrorism is why Americans must unilaterally attack Iraq, Iran, and even Syria. A black and white world where only good can vanquish evil. IOW a political agenda explains everything. Iraq and 11 September was inseparable in Urbane Guerrilla's mind. Now that he cannot rewrite that history, he tries to claim "Mission Accomplished" has no relationship to 11 September? Rewriting his own opinions also justified by his political agenda?