Before the war, administration officials said that success would mean an Iraq that no longer threatened important U.S. interests – that did not support terrorism, aspire to WMD, threaten its neighbors, or conduct mass murder. But from the fall of 2003 on, the president defined success as stable democracy in Iraq.
This was a public affairs decision that has had enormous strategic consequences for American support for the war. The new formula fails to connect the Iraq war directly to U.S. interests. It causes many Americans to question why we should be investing so much blood and treasure for Iraqis. And many Americans doubt that the new aim is realistic – that stable democracy can be achieved in Iraq in the foreseeable future.
If only we’d defined success as LOTS OF DEAD PEOPLE AND STUFF GETTING BLOWED UP, we’d be so successful now!
The fact that he says these things out loud with no sense of irony at all is evidence of a moral dyslexia so profound I’m tempted to send him a care package full of cookies and the number of a very reliable shrink.
Hat tip to Scout.