The original American objective was to remove Saddam with a minimum of bloodshed. That objective was accomplished.

The objective was then to hold elections and create a government. Several elections have been held and a new government should be announced shortly.

Like Zeno’s hare, what I see happening is that as objectives are met, they are changed and moved ahead by the press and other anti-war types.

It’s not enough that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, but it must have a democratic government with minority rights for women AND be as safe as New York City today.

Uhm, not going to happen anytime soon. First you have formerly oppressed people with grudges and guns. They will want to exact revenge. Second you have Al-Qaeda with it’s Islamic Messianic message that has pulled out of Afghanistan to make its last stand in Iraq. Third you have three regimes – Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia – that are trying to influence events in Iraq to their best ability.

This is all happening in a space of nearly 3 years.

Nation building is a messy business. Clinton failed to do it in Somalia and Yugoslavia, and Bush I avoided doing it in ‘91 by pulling the troops out of Iraq after Saddam surrendered. Going back to Germany and Japan, people forget how the Soviets meddled in both operations early on to the point where we had to fly in supplies to Berlin in 1948, and were forced to ban teachers unions in Japan around the same time (for being infiltrated by pro-Stalin communists and agitating against the Occupation).

However, once you break it – you’ve bought it. So if the policy has failed, I’d argue that it’s time for a new policy.

What do you think of William F. Buckley’s latest commentary in the NRO where he states, “One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” Just curious.

Jack