To define success and failure of a mission you have to identify a goal or a set of goals to be achieved.

The Iraq 'mission had 3 major goals - all of them achieved.

1) The removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.
2) The ability to generate a new terror 'battlefield' outside the US.
3) The ability to acquire a US staging area for the middle east.*
4) End any threat of WMD coming from Iraq.

As an unintended bonus we got to end the billion dollar UN oil for food scandal.

All 4 desired goals were achieved: 'Mission accomplished'. When Bush had been briefed by strategists they used that exact phrase after Saddam's capture. And it was perfectly true.

You see the things that the Iraq mission were NOT mission parameters:

1) Make Iraq a thriving democracy.
2) End all violence in Iraq.
3) Turn Iraqis into educated American clones

Folks are now using these as some sort of measure of the mission's success when they are irrelevant to the primary objectives accomplished. Might as well expect Iraq to be the home of geese that lay golden eggs and honey that when eaten let's folks live to two hundred.

PS This wasn't for you Bowser, I realize you have a block when it comes to the US efforts in the Middle East. But others will easily grasp the concepts presented.

;-)

*Using just Diego Garcia and Carriers was MASSIVELY limiting to our ability to move around the Middle East with anything resembling efficiency.