``I know how important it is to the overall war on terror. Success in Iraq means a more peaceful world for America, it means a victory against terrorists. Failure in Iraq means a big defeat against terrorists and the war on terror is going to be tougher for us.'' - Rudi Giuliani on NBC.
He indeed is right AND wrong in what he says. Yes, a success in Iraq would mean a more peaceful world and it would mean a victory against terrorists. Also, a defeat in Iraq would be a major set back for the western world. However, the problem is that his analysis of what is necessary for a success and a failure are wrong.
More troops and more imperialism are certainly the last things Iraq needs, unlike a seperation into 3 different states. To stay the course would certainly mean failure in Iraq and forcing more of the same bullshit into the country by sending more troops is only accelerating the outcome.
A plan to call troops back home could, however, stabilize the region again, because it were a clear signal to grant Iraq independence. This indeed means success, because it would make the Middle East more peaceful and it would certainly make it more peaceful for the US soldiers, who would be free to return to their families.
So, Giuliani's politicspeech is indeed correct, albeit in a different context. This is a fine example of how politician's wording is wobbily and diffuse, as if they tried to cover that their moral could be wrong...