moral? credible? failure?

Failure and credibility
Former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that his country has failed in Iraq and proposed a list of actions as a contingency plan. Mr Rumsfeld`s admission, latest in the series of confessions by prominent US officials, including US President George W Bush, is of critical importance as he is seen as the chief architect and mastermind of the Iraq war. Leave alone the political repercussions which the Iraq war has had on American domestic affairs, the defeat of the Republicans in the midterm congressional election being a major one, the admission sends a strong message to the global community.
The Iraqi quagmire has been accompanied by growing anti-American sentiment in countries closes to America. The example that comes to mind is Venezuela and the rise of Hugo Chavez, recently elected to a third term. This has also been followed by the North Korea defying international opinion and exploding a nuclear device and one can also see defiance of America is Iran`s refusal to scale back its uranium enrichment programme.
Given the bashing which America has received in Iraq, how true was the "bombing back to stone age" rationale which the Pakistani regime presented to its masses as an excuse to side with the US crusade on Afghanistan? Could America have dared attack a nuclear state? At the time of the Afghan war, President Musharraf gave the nation a new slogan of "Pakistan first". In his post 9/11 speech he promised an all-gain package in exchange for a U-turn on the Afghan policy.
The package included glorification of the Kashmir cause, safeguarding Pakistan`s nuclear assets and protection of the strategic assets and sovereignty of Pakistan. If it was fear which compelled the Pakistani government to side with the US, what justification remains to be part of the coalition against the so-called war on terror, when the US administration itself is admitting its failure to enforce its hegemony over the globe? Doesn`t the failure of the Pakistani policymakers to properly asses and analyse the ground realities after 9/11 pose a question about their credibility and sincerity?