The most recent Iraq war was one of the shortest in history, and an incredible success.

One of the shortest? Most certainly. An incredible success? Hmm...

Main Entry: suc·ceed
Function: verb
1 a : to come next after another in office or position or in possession of an estate; especially : to inherit sovereignty, rank, or title b : to follow after another in order
2 a : to turn out well b : to attain a desired object or end

Now obviously (2a) and (2b) are the definitions that are relevant here. So did the war "turn out well?" Strictly in terms of the number of U.S. casualties, it was a "good war." We didn't lose nearly as many GI's as we did in other conflicts. Now to "turn out well" and have a true success, you need to meet the stated objectives, or, as (2b) says, "attain the desired object or end." So what was the desired object or end?

No, I'm serious, please tell me, because it kept changing. In the beginning of the war, our Government would have had us believing that Saddam and Osama were poker buddies, smoking cigars and exchanging WMD's over a bottle of Courvoisier. Then, as our "intelligence" about Al Qaeda ties and WMD possession melted away, it was suddenly about liberating the Iraqi people. Those Iraqi people that we care so much about otherwise, right? Of all the dictators, despots, and all-around dickheads on the planet, we just had to go get Saddam? Something does not compute.

Look, if you go back and do a search for previous discussions of this war, you'll find I supported our initial charge to go in there and back up the toothless UN Security Council resolutions that had already been agreed to. I also, for some strange reason, believed our Government when they said they could prove the existence of the weapons, and that there was a tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda other than the fact that they both hate the U.S. When I started to realize that it was all circumstantial evidence that was suddenly turned into "can't-miss" intelligence, I was worried. When that intelligence completely fell through, and the war was suddenly about "liberating the Iraqi people".. Well, let's just say that this administration used up all of the benefit of doubt I had given them in the beginning.

So now we have Saddam. Hooray. Let the debates begin about whether he should be tried by the Iraqis, sent to the Hague, or dumped into the ocean to see if he floats like a witch. Frankly I couldn't care less. Removing him from the country does take away a longterm problem, but a good portion of his network is still going to survive in Iraq long after his ouster, and contrary to popular belief, he is not going to suddenly rat out all of his cronies who are propping up the resistance in Iraq. You can be assured that there is a whole army of similarly-minded Iraqis who haven't seen Saddam in a long time anyway, and aren't going to stop now that he's no longer hiding in Tikrit.

Don't get me wrong, having Saddam in our custody is better than not having him, and not knowing what he's up to. But after all of the failures to meet the ORIGINAL stated objectives of the war (ridding Iraq of WMD's and getting rid of Al Qaeda) I think anyone who sees nabbing this figurehead as a sign of successful war has a serious case of amnesia.