The impending Veto

[Undertoad]

From my post (three up):

It seems very obvious to me that the big #1 overall strategic objective is to win the global war on terror, which is politically correct shorthand for preventing Islamic fundamentalists from destroying large sectors of civilization.

Uh... yeah. It's right there in the middle of my post. I guess you didn't read that, or didn't want to address it, for some reason. (Picking what you want to address is controlling the agenda; it's part of your little game.)

The den Beste piece (strategic overview) explains the thinking (although mistaken, it was thinking, it was a strategy) around why Iraq was part of that objective ("part of the war on terror", even if bin Laden was not directly connected to Iraq).

--

Talking about it using the phrase "Mission Accomplished" indicates a lack of intellectual honesty, to introduce bias into the question before it's asked. Mixing a event from a single phase with the notion of "strategic objective" is not exactly critical thinking, either. It needlessly muddles the question.

Nevertheless, the Mission of the fine folks onboard that aircraft carrier was the military overthrow of Saddam's government, and it was Accomplished well, with minimum US casualties, minimum Iraqi civilian casualties, and the desertion of most of the Iraqi army. It was rightly celebrated. In fact some say the phase went TOO easy, because the real enemy did not actually personally witness much "shock and awe", and thus was not strongly deterred by the idea that resistance would result in a 1000-lb bomb precisely guided onto their head.

The Frontline piece you like so well kind of begins the day after that mission was accomplished, doesn't it? That's lost time that can never be recovered.

But simply because "mistakes were made" doesn't mean there is no overall strategic objective; just because you can't see it (or aren't privy to it, or it's communicated to you poorly, or you don't believe it, or you fail to understand it) doesn't mean there isn't one.