The greatest understatement in the recent history of human civilization

Jules Crittenden:

George W. Bush did not solve all the problems of the world's most troubled and dangerous region.

You don't say!

Crittenden's larger claim -- that the Bush Doctrine has somehow worked out more or less as planned and predicted -- is beyond absurd. He and others who follow this tack seem to believe that "success" may be defined as the fortunate avoidance of the worst possible alternate outcomes. But as anyone who isn't a transparent hack would understand, the fact that Bush took the nation to war in 2003 does not mean that (a) Saddam Hussein would otherwise have survived into 2008 stronger and more dangerous than anyone could ever have imagined, (b) that Iran would otherwise have nuclear weapons, (c) that al-Qaeda would have earned the sponsorship of numerous other regimes across the Middle East, and (d) that the entire region would otherwise now be perched on the edge of a genocidal bloodbath. There were numerous paths the administration could have taken to avoid any or all of these scenarios; it chose the bloodiest and costliest and the one least conducive to anyone's long-term interest, save those who enjoy writing about how the United States needs to "impress" and "chasten" its foes with multi-trillion dollar wars.

I imagine we'll have to endure a lot of this nonsense in the coming months, and probably forever.