"Splain me, bomber, exactly what was it Bush won in Iran?"
It was Iraq that Nutcase was reffering to. Not Iran. They are two entirely different countries, although I will admit that the fact that they share 75% of the same letters in the same order can be confusing.
There were actually several key elements to the Bush plan that I can point to as having led to success in Iraq. First, the surge. Committing the necessary number of troops to accomplish the mission. Something that should have been intutively obvious to even the most casual observer. Perhaps more importanly was isolating the representatives of Al Quaeda in Iraq, which has been virtually wiped out in that country.
If you compare Iraq now with what it might have been, there's no question that they are better off. Saddam is gone. His sons are no longer running wild, raping and pillaging with immunity. The Kurds no longer need fear that thier desire for independance might prompt a gas attack. Al Quaeda has also been wiped out, for the most part with the support of local Sunni militias.
maybe it would just be easier if you "splained" how Bush lost the war?
"The surge was phoney PR stunt designed to permit the Bush/Cheney exit without admitting defeat."
The war in Iraq could have been lost in many different ways. Saddam could have re-emerged and driven the coalition out. Al Quaeda or some other ferverently anti-american group could have emerged as the dominant power. Both of those were possibilites, and both have been eliminated. So, if it was just a PR stunt, it's one that went swimmingly in serving to accomplish US goals in Iraq.
"Worst of all, Iraq's power shift to Sunnis has closely aligned them with Iran."
Wrong. Iran is a Shi'a nation, and have traditionally been relatively hostile to the Sunni community. The feeling appears to be mutual. But given that the majority of Iraqis are Shi'a, that's a pretty logical outcome. We in the US are pretty close with Canada, for many of the same reasons. but I guess I'm confused on the logic of your argument. Should we have left Saddam in since he was a secular leader that would opress the Iraqi Shi'a community and offset the influence of Iran? Or maybe you are suggesting that the US should work to install leaders in foreign countries that will best serve in the interest of the US government, even when done so against the will of the local population? If so, let's start with Cuba, followed shortly thereafter by Venzuela. I have a lot of Venezuelan friends that desperately want to go home...
BTW, I'm not in complete disagreement with you. As a secular leader, Saddam was most likely the closest think to a potential ally that we had. his biggest concern was himself and his own power. I have no doubts that he could have been bought off for far less than what it cost to invade and overthrow that country. Of course the other side would have been the outrage on the left that Bush was supporting a vicious and well documented human rights violater that routinely killed his opponents. I have to wonder if your voiced concern for Saddam would have been the same under those circumstances?
