Steve Gilliard pulls together some assessments on the progress in Iraq from several newspapers and begins to draw conclusions.

The reason this is happening comes from two decisions driven by Donald Rumsfeld, a desire for an American-dominated victory and the refusal to fully plan for the occupation of Iraq. These two decisions have lead to the current mess in Iraq.

Rumsfeld and his PNAC buddies wanted an American victory in the war on terrorism. The fact that Iraq was not actively attacking the US was irrelevant. So the quest for allies was a short, cosmetic one. They wanted to eliminate Saddam and show the rest of the region that US power was to be feared. Well, it didn’t work out that way.

The latest buzz is that, once again, we may have killed Saddam, but frankly, he’s no longer relevant to this discussion. Even if he was directing a guerrilla war, the Kurds and Shia would prevent his return to power, by force of arms if necessary. So the idea that he’s hiding in the shadows and waiting to come back to his palaces is a pipe dream.

An interesting analysis, but saying Sadaam is no longer relevant is jumping a bit overboard. Sadaam is relevant so far as his ultimate fate is concerned, not for the reality of his possible return, but for the mythical hero he could become.