The 'mission creep' Bush and Powell sought to avoid wasn't what to do in Iraq after Saddam's removal ie the same problems we're encountering now that you point to re: free Shiites/quell Shiites. So when you said what is happening now is 'exactly the same mission creep Bush and Powell sought to avoid in '91 and are now looking like genius's for doing so' you are being revisionist. The coalition breaking up was Bush's concern, not the nuts and bolts of what would happen post Saddam. It is fairly circular to argue that Bush wanted to avoid mission creep because mission creep would have stopped mission creep from happening.
The 12 permanent military bases we are building is mission accomplished... time to withdraw the troops that aren't needed.
how about our nice new 100 acre embassy - the largest in the world. for reference, the entire university of texas is "only" 40 acres. why do we need our largest embassy in the world in iraq?
I think we can have as much 'acreage' as we want in Iraq. The land is cheap* for us at this time. *if you don't count the cost of the war.
How the heck is it circular at all? Bush 41 didn't want to expand the Desert Storm mission beyond the stated goal of removing Saddam from Kuwait because he feared that mission creep would doom the coalition. He got a lot of grief about that but in hindsight it was the right thing to do as it avoided us invading and occupying Iraq with a half-@ssed coalition of the willing of only close US allies with no Muslim countries. The situation we have now is that we no longer have a defined mission and are stuck there in a totally unclear situation. What is circular reasoning about it. Bush 41 didn't want mission creep because he saw it as being very problematic. We've got mission creep all over the place now showing why mission creep is a problem. Its pretty straightforward showing tht Bush 41 was right.
It is circular because your argument is: Bush is a genius because he ended the coalition after freeing Kuwait. The fact that Bush wanted to avoid mission creep because it would cause the end of the coalition proves this. The 'mission creep' that is occuring now (if you can even call it that - no reason why stabilizing the country would not be considered part of the original mission) is nothing like the problem presented in '91. Then the problem was the potential impact on the external coalition from expanding the mission into Iraq, the problem now comes with finishing the original mission. The current problems don't show anything one way or another about Bush's decision as far as the current changes in Iraq, which was related to the coalition, not the internal workings of Iraq. If anything, Bush's call for the Shiites to rise up paved the way for the neoconservative position that an internal uprising on its own could not overthrow Saddam despite the wishes of the majority of the Iraqis. Calling him a genius for that is absurd. Similarly, look at Somalia - the initial goal of opening the lines for food aid was accomplished. When the mission was expanded to capture Adid problems ensued. That is not comparable to the problem now in Iraq. Removing Saddam and securing the country was the original mission and is still the problem.
