Success and Failure in Iraq

So Bush has succeeded. He has achieved an American land-grab comparable to Jackson's 'Indian Removal Act' and the eviction of the Cherokee from the Appalachians, or Polk's war, America's first 'war of choice', that stripped Mexico of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of three other states.

The major differences are:

1. Iraq is not an extension of the existing United States into which land-hungry settlers can pour.
2. He can't wipe out or swamp the natives. The billion-dollar embassy will be surrounded by active enemies forever.
3. This time it's all about oil, global power, and the personal enrichment of Bush, his family, his inner circle, and his power base - even if it impoverishes the average American.

Bush's preferred activity at Yale (apart from drink, drugs and sex) was playing Risk. I'm sure he was very good at it, and I'm sure he cheated whenever he could get away with it. Unfortunately, it presents a very simplistic view of warfare and global dominance. All countries are the same, they're just worth 1 point each; they don't have cultures or histories or religions; they don't even have populations to worry about, with insurgents and ethnic divisions and civil wars. All you have to do, if there's a setback, is raise more troops and roll more dice.

Mr. Bush, globally ignorant, builds his billion-dollar Fort Embassy in the middle of the country with all the oil. What he fails to take into account is that, if the country break into three, the US will be sitting in the only bit without oil.

But so what? That will be the next Administration's problem.

Bush has had his fun, accomplished his mission, benefited his friends, and set himself up financially for life.

By the way, that's proof that Jesus loves him.