Quantcast

Mission Accomplished

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT


Five years ago today:poster_oops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7377036.stm

Still no 'mission accomplished'

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

President Bush did not say "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln off San Diego on 1 May five years ago. But the banner above him did.

And the picture of those two words said more than the 1,829 words of his speech.

What the president said, among a lot of other things, was: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

But the message from the banner said it simpler - mission accomplished. It was all over.

It wasn't. Guerrilla war followed, and this has produced more US casualties than the "major combat operations" did.

The phrase "mission accomplished" has lost that distinctive military ring of finality that it once had. It has become an irony.

Navy's desire

It turned out that the sign was the US Navy's idea, to celebrate the return of the Abraham Lincoln from the war on Iraq, after an operational tour of 290 days.

Mr Bush explained this in October 2003 and was supported by Navy spokesman Commander Conrad Chun, who told CNN: "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea. The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment."

However, it was not quite that simple. It also turned out that the banner was made, by a private contractor, with the help of White House staff.

And there can be little doubt that those White House staff ensured that the banner was correctly placed for the cameras.

So much about that visit was planned for effect - the location, the president dressed in combat gear, landing in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3 when he could have used a helicopter, the television cameras.

Rumsfeld intervention

The banner destroyed the care that the administration had taken over the speech.

The Defence Secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, told journalist Bob Woodward in an interview in 2006 that he had edited the speech's draft, which had included the contentious phrase.

"I took 'mission accomplished' out," he said.

"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said 'my God, it's too conclusive'. And I fixed it and sent it back... and they fixed the speech, but not the sign."

Mr Bush did in fact use the phrase himself a month later, telling American troops in Qatar: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."

Afghanistan, too

And Mr Rumsfeld himself said, on the same day as the Abraham Lincoln event, that major combat in Afghanistan had also ended.

He declared in Kabul: "We're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilisation and reconstruction activities. The bulk of this country today is permissive, it's secure."

The story of the banner would have made a good episode of the US television series The West Wing.

One can imagine the excited planning and then the gradual realisation over the following months that it was not yet mission accomplished.

The face of the White House director of communications, Toby, would have turned even sourer than usual. Chief of staff Leo would have grunted.

The White House, five years on, acknowledges that it was not well thought out.

Press secretary Dana Perino said: "President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission. And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner."

The speech

And the speech itself?

What is interesting about that is how much optimism (and determination) it displayed, not just about Iraq, but about other areas of combat that are still at issue.

"In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taleban... "

"From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al-Qaeda killers."

"The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
ibd.com
Bush's Big Victory

Mideast: In most ways, the news from Iraq couldn't be better. People there feel more secure, and are more committed to democracy, than ever. Is it possible that President Bush was right after all?

A poll of average Iraqis conducted by ABC News, the BBC and Japan's NHK shows significant progress on virtually all fronts. Yet, we've heard nary a peep about it from anyone.

Some 85% of respondents said their neighborhood security was "good," vs. 62% a year ago and just 43% in August of 2007. And 52% said security had gotten better in the last year — during the Bush-Petraeus "surge," which was widely ridiculed at the time as an unnecessary escalation of the Iraq War.

Support for democracy jumped to 64%, a 21-percentage-point gain since 2007, according to a report on CNSNews.com. As for how Iraqis felt about the general state of affairs in Iraq, 58% called it "very good" or "quite good," up significantly from 43% last year and 22% in 2007.

When asked what their concerns are today, Iraqis sound a lot like Americans: Jobs and prices are at the top of their list — not war, not security, not terrorism.

In short, it sounds like we not only won the war, but the peace as well. And for those who cast a skeptical eye on the idea that any Islamic country could ever be democratized, it turns out the former President Bush is winning that debate too.

With President Obama in the middle of withdrawing troops from Iraq on a schedule that looks suspiciously identical to the one that Bush had in place, it's safe to say that Obama increasingly sees the wisdom of what his predecessor tried to do in Iraq.

Maybe the rest of us should as well.

It's become de rigueur to deride Bush's "failed" policies in Iraq. No one speaks well of them — except, maybe, Iraqis.

But here are the facts, stark as they are: During his vicious 20-year reign, Saddam Hussein — remember him? — killed an estimated 5% of Iraq's population. That works out to about 5,000 people a month slaughtered by the regime.

You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.

For those who say Bush went to war in Iraq under false pretenses — you know, "Bush lied, people died" — there's this: He made a lengthy, nuanced defense of his decision to get rid of Saddam. It was reflected in Congress' own resolution in late 2002, which cited 23 reasons for removing Saddam from power.

The ideas that it was all about oil or that Congress was bamboozled on WMD are both false.

Bush, Congress and our foreign allies all saw the same intelligence, and all came to the same conclusion: Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, and intended to build one as soon as he was able. That was, and remained, true.

After being bashed relentlessly in the media and on the campaign trail, President Bush left the White House with his approval ratings low and little, except his dignity, intact.

If he is to have a Truman-like reprieve in the public eye, it will surely come as we all start to realize that on Iraq, contrary to popular and elite opinion, Bush got it right. Mission accomplished.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,032
7,553
are you serious, $tinkle? i never can tell with you.

iraq is a failure. the u.s. military deaths. the thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths. the lack of electricity. the continuing underproduction of oil fields. the graft and incompetence on both the american "rebuilders" and iraqi sides. the immense economic and social cost to the u.s.

yet an unscientific OPINION POLL in a neocon journal is enough to convince you?
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
With that logic, why haven't we invaded Darfur? North Korea? China?

I agree that Petreus is doing a better job, and I am very glad that Iraq is a safer place since we invaded.

However, I want to point out in Bush's Second State of The Union address, he says:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
He fails to mention Hussein at all. I also looked through the original Congressional resolution and it has WMD's everywhere, and only mentions oppression of the Iraqi people twice.

I would support an invasion of Sudan before I would in Iraq, but that won't happen? Why? Because it is a sinkhole of our resources with no payoff.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
not sure which is funnier: that after 6 yrs you lot can't tell when i'm trolling, or that bush still dries out your flaps
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,032
7,553
not sure which is funnier: that after 6 yrs you lot can't tell when i'm trolling, or that bush still dries out your flaps
the thing is i know republicans, people my age for crying out loud, who really do believe that tripe you posted.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
not sure which is funnier: that after 6 yrs you lot can't tell when i'm trolling, or that bush still dries out your flaps
I don't think my anger will subside about Bush. Besides having a huge fckup run the country, my biggest complaint is that my and millions of other voices were shut out for the last 8 years, and if it was up to Republicans, we still be gagged.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
the thing is i know republicans, people my age for crying out loud, who really do believe that tripe you posted.
here's a neat bar trick: casually mention to these associates the disproportionate number of abortions occur with minorities (assuming they aren't aware of this, & they tow teh company line on abortion). wait a few days & re-engage the topic. they don't even have to be white; just like the most obnoxious proponents of racial equality (at the expense of others) are guilt-ridden white liberals
Besides having a huge fckup run the country, my biggest complaint is that my and millions of other voices were shut out for the last 8 years
i don't believe you, especially given his far-from-glowing polling numbers.

or did you *not* mean a literal voice?