"If politics is the business of deciding "who gets what, when, how," as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall in New York City once said, then the military aspects of war are the most extreme form of politics. The war in Iraq will answer that question there."

Yeah, if.
But why only pick only such luminaries as Boss Tweed. Surely such people as Stalin also would have wisdom for this occasion. Or you don't like the "old and dusty" pick some gangster rapper for your pity wisdom.

"1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

* the destruction of Iraqi WMD;
* the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
* the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. "

Actually Iraq did have WMD, but though somewhat close discription, the aim was not merely to destroy Iraqi WMD, but rather to have Iraq follow it's Cease Fire Agreement which not only called for the existing WMD to be destroyed and for this destruction to done in a manner in which it could verified by UN inspectors. And to have system in place which Iraq would never make these WMD. But to make it brief instead of "the destruction of Iraqi WMD" it should have been "Ensure to compliance with Cease fire agreement, esp in regard to section regarding WMD". Or simply, "Ensure to compliance with Cease fire agreement".

Continuing with rest of paragraph of article:
"The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners."

The second was not achieved by late Spring of 2003- though it was finally and decisively ended with Saddam being hanged in Jan 2006. Now, when President Bush said we had completed "Major combat operations" after spring of 2003, all the lefties began their campaign to misled the public in spinning the story that Bush had claimed the "Mission was accomplished"/ "war had ended" and that President Bush was misleading the public. Or in other words lied their asses off claiming Bush had "lied". BUT now what are they claiming? It's too fucking stupid.

As for the "third aim" as claimed by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (ret). This goal has been achieved- Iraq is a democracy. It has a constitution, it has leaders which have been elected, it has a Free Press, and it has various rights which could only be descibed as very modern/progressive in comparison to any other country in the region.

Also related to this is a comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems pretty obvious to anyone who as a clue, that Afghanistan is going to require longer miltary assistance in terms of security than Iraq.