THE ADMINISTATION'S DEFINITION OF SUCCESS IN IRAQ

The definition of chutzpah. Dick Cheney:

"Would the United States and other free nations be better off or worse off with (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi, (Osama) bin Laden and (Ayman al-) Zawahiri in control of Iraq?" he asked. "Would be we safer or less safe with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?"

Well, Dick, there'd be no possibility (unlikely as it is now) of such an occurrence had we not invaded Iraq. In other words, at the cost of more than 2000 American lives and more than 15,000 maimed troops plus $200 billion and counting, we displaced one despot only to provide a launch site for still others who are "intent on the destruction of our country?" How, in any scenario they can spin, can the Bush administration count that as a success? Are we to believe that if we "stay the course" and Zarqawi et al are "defeated," Ahmed Chalabi or another Bush/Cheney-favored Saddam-like politico won't rise up to assert the same kind of iron rule that was the only proven means of controlling the various religious and political factions that comprise the nation of Iraq, or that an Iranian-like cleric won't establish an Islamic republic that, by its nature, despises the "Great Satan" United States and is itself "intent on its destruction"?

So what will we have won after so much American sacrifice of lives and fortune? How will our interests have been protected or even improved on?

I fear and believe that the Bush administation's definition of success in Iraq is simply this: control of Iraq's oil resources and higher poll rankings among American voters. Happily, their cynical misadventure seems to be losing on at least the latter count.

Tags: Dick Cheney, Iraq