With at least 135 U.S. deaths, November tied April as the deadliest month for American servicemen in Iraq. Although no statistic measures this, November also seems to have been the deadliest month for insurgents, terrorists, and other Arab ne'er-do-wells because of the assault on Fallujah.

With Saddam Hussein rotting in a cell, and the primary motivations for going to war--weapons of mass destruction, Hussein-9/11 link, an advanced nuclear program--proven false even to the White House's satisfaction, the question necessarily arises: what are we doing in Iraq?

What President Bush is doing is what Governor Bush denounced: nation-building. Next month's elections have caused the president to boost the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to its highest level in the short history of the war. And for what? So that Iraqis can elect a government. In other words, to nation-build.

In 2000, Republicans ran mocking the practice of nation-building, something the Clinton administration had taken part in, for instance, in Haiti and Bosnia. In 2004, Republicans eagerly support our continued presence in Iraq that focuses on one objective: nation-building. How quickly politics overtakes principle.

Are we to infer from your comments that you would rather that Saddam not be in jail? And that the United States not try to bring about democracy in Iraq?

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, other than the fact that a politician (George Bush) at one time said one thing and is now doing something different. There's nothing new about this; this is the nature of politics. Those that are uncomfortable saying one thing and then doing another would have a short career in politics.

Dan, good post. And I agree that this type of nation-building is generally not in our best interests. We're losing good people for no clear reason. However, since we ARE in Iraq and there may be a long-term strategic opportunity there, though I just wish someone would spell it out.

Many feel that Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) really DOES pose a threat to the US and an even more immediate threat to Europe. There is a view that, for better or worse, Iran is going to be next on the "chopping block".

But, if we can bring some kind of stability to Iraq, the US would presumably have a friendly nation from which to project its power. I doubt that the Saudis would be willing to help us in any action against Iran, as they've very nearly kicked us out of the country. And the UAE is unlikely to assist us in the Arabian Sea or the Persian Gulf.

Of course, in such an event we would control the Gulf and the Sea anyway, and with sizable US bases in Afghanistan to the east, the same in Iraq to their west, and a blockade and naval power from the south, Iran may even (hopefully) back down under the pressure if it ever came to that. Iran is committed to building, and some say using on Israel, nuclear weapons as soon as possible. That determination will not go ignored by this President. He'll consider going in.

I'm probably just looking for a silver lining here, but if all of this leads to what I've described (I'm a bit of a crackpot, so probably not), then perhaps more lives will end up being saved than lost in the long run. In any case, if we are going to tangle with Iran, I sure like the idea of being able to surround the country on 3 sides.

Politicians who say one thing and do another should be called to account. Dave, since George W. Bush isn't the first politician to do this, should we just ignore it because it's nothing "new"?

Saddam Hussein in jail is a positive consequence of the war. Why you question that I think otherwise is based on nothing but an overactive imagination on your part. My reason for mentioning it is that with that aspect of the mission accomplished--and the other justifications for war proven false--what are we still doing in Iraq?

Bringing democracy to Iraq is not the job of the United States.

Reread the last paragraph of the post and you'll figure out that I'm talking more about the mental gymnastics of millions of people--Republicans--rather than the mental gymnastics or one man.

I do not share the administration's rationale for our continued presence in Iraq: democracy for everyone, etc. I nevertheless believe we should remain there.

In my humble opinion, our presence in Iraq is to terrorists something like the flame is to the moth. Better to draw them into direct conflict with our capable military, than have them plotting within our borders. Of course, I do not know that our presence in Iraq has any direct correlation with the absence of terrorism here, but it seems a likely possibility.

9/11 shook alot of people up and changed their mindset....what don't you understand?

To say that Bush changed his position of nation-building because of politics is just wrong....and if Democrats are so "principled" why have so many opposed the President in his endeavors...they should be cheering him on!

Maggie, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? If we invaded Mongolia during World War II, would you be defending it by saying Pearl Harbor changed everyone's mindset? After all, Mongolians sort of look like the people who bombed our ships in Hawaii and they inhabit the same general part of the planet as Japan.

Maggie: who said that the Democrats were principled (or "principled")? Just by saying that the Republicans are being unprincipled, one does not imply that the Democrats are being the opposite, principled. (Similar case: I can say that the Orioles are playing terribly, while not implying that their opponent the Devil Rays are playing well.)

Partisanship makes people think silly things.

Maggie, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Both are instances of an overall War on Terror.

If we invaded Mongolia during World War II, would you be defending it by saying Pearl Harbor changed everyone's mindset?

Bad ana logy. WW2 was a War on Fascism. Although those Mongolians can be pretty mean, they didn't make the cut.

Dan, your comment filter won't let me post the word "ana logy".

I am not a proctologist, I swear.

what are we still doing in Iraq?

How 'bout "Preventing another Cambodia?"

Looks like bin Laden is rested a ready. Without Amerikan support, I'm sure a feeble Middle Eastern "democracy" will be enough to prevent him from setting up shop to export his 'warez.

Why are we still in Iraq? To be the country that we proclaim to the world that we are.

Regardless of the validity for the invasion, we did invade. We removed their system of government, virtually destroyed their economy, and basically turned everthing on it's ear.

What is the morally correct way to proceed? Pull all of the troops, engineers, cival servants, and aid workers out with an " Oops! Sorry about ruining what little bit of a life you had". I think not. While nation building may still be reprehensible to the President, it is what a principiled person should do. We spilled the milk, so we had better do the mopping. Otherwise we will have the same results that we had in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. Not a plesant picture.

I have to disagree and say that this is an issue of principal over politics. It would certainly be more politcally expedient for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and hand over the rebuilding to the U.N., but thats not very principiled.