More Americans believe going to war in Iraq was a mistake than believe it wasn't, according to a new USA Today poll. Public opinion of the war has soured, with just 41 percent of Americans holding that going to war was "worth it" and 57 percent maintaining it was "not worth it." When U.S. troops overthrew the Bathist regime, three in four Americans held that the war was "worth it."

Why do Americans believe this war wasn't worth it in comparison to when the Baathist regime was overthrown?

It may have to do with the fact that insurgents continue attacks although there are indications that their morale is low. It may also have to do w/ the fact that we've been there for two years and we have more serious problems than the one in the Middle East. The resources being used in Iraq are creating shortfalls in other areas I would deem more "immediate" issues that need to be addressed like our homeland, America.

I think Americans are now beginning to realize that sure overthrowing a tyrannt is a worthy cause and helping establish a democracy is worthy as well YET it becomes more obvious that Americans aren't comfortable with the timetable and the longevity it takes to support a new democracy hence they're becoming ever more frequently impatient in wanting US troops brought home therefore they are beginning to view this as unworthy when causes here in America are more important.

A reality that Pres. Bush must realize in trying to determine what is a more important priority... bringing democracy to all nations under tyrannical regimes or rebuilding our nation while protecting the homeland. I choose focusing on our nation while keeping a "small presence" in the Middle East. Some may this is cowardice BUT I say this is being responsible in going in the right direction towards giving our military a rest badly. We are too stretched out and must return a majority of troops for the sake of America's "immediate" needs. We can maintain a presence and finish the job YET we must return a majority of troops. This wouldn't be some cut and run job and I know the cons will come out and blast me BUT "big-government" Bush needs to address this situation sooner than later or else... the lame-duck status will begin to appear.

The Bush administration erred at the beginning when they did not inform the American people of how difficult the battle for Iraq would be. I knew it would be difficult. The poll question itself is misleading. If the war in Iraq is not worth it, then the war on terror is not worth it. The bottom line is if we don't win in Iraq we don't win the war on terror. Many people don't understand that this. Of course, if one only follows the mainstream media, they will not understand the stakes. The Bush administration will need to do a better job of explaining this.

Hello Poster: "If the war in Iraq is not worth it, then the war on terror is not worth it. The bottom line is if we don't win in Iraq we don't win the war on terror. Many people don't understand that this."

Count me among those who just doesn't understand this. In fact, I don't see how anyone could understand this. What counts as winning in Iraq? And what counts as winning in the war on terror?

I am with Short.

"If the war in Iraq is not worth it, then the war on terror is not worth it. The bottom line is if we don't win in Iraq we don't win the war on terror."

I am really confused by this because its assumed that if we don't win in Iraq then we don't win the War on Terror. I think its obvious we won the war in Iraq when they had elections held the end of January. The War on Terror although included within the context of the Iraq situation was also brought into Iraq by the US invasion therefore what I saying is that the War in Iraq has been won basically BUT the price of war and reconstruction of a country is far outweighing the costs of our problems here at home. Americans are becoming impatient with the longevity of time our troops have remained in Iraq and thats why its now viewed as an unworthy cause. The War on Terro although a "part" of the Iraq situation is also much broader so hence this is always a worthy cause because of 9/11 and how it changed our views globally. I disagree with the fact that you assume that if we lose in Iraq then we lose the War on Terror. You couldn't be anymore wrong on that one. We are winning, changes have been made, and now its time to downsize our militaty presence while maintaining our focus on terrorists while Iraq focuses on building a nation and that they're doing.

The Bush Administration also erred by saying Iraq was an "immediate" threat to our national security because they possessed WMD's.

Have we found those WMD's yet?

I don't understand: Does the American public think that occupying and stabilizing a country is like watching an episode of Law and Order? that there's a neat conclusion and all you have to do is wait around for it? or that if there were a faster exit strategy the price of gas would dip below $2/gallon?

"Nation-building" encompasses many aspects - not just infrastrusture and economy, but qualitative and even spiritual matters, a sense of identity and purpose - that only the insistent practice of a civic courage, or virtue, will instill. It won't be felt in weeks or months, but years. Iraq had a Ba'athist version of nationhood, in part accomodated by the U.S., but now that's past. There's no turning back.

I think B. Poster means that, if we leave prematurely (i.e., before the new government can defend and sustain itself) and the whole place goes to Hades, enemies of the U.S. (e.g., Islamist terrorists) would be emboldened.

I think it's a good point.

Spitfly -- thank's for the props. (BTW, is the comma-button broken on your keyboard? jk)

I'm sorry, Jeremiah, you want us to be patient because nation-building is hard work. But all the things you say are good reasons not to get involved in nation-building in the first place. You define success in Iraq so flowery and amorphously that we could never win there and we will never have a reason to say "good enough, let's get out."

And what is this, "there's no turning back now"? Turn back from what, and to what, and why not?

Short, Spitfly, and Spit

I am going to try and address all of the points you raised.

What counts as winning the war in Iraq? Winning in Iraq involves the following: 1.)Supporting a government that we can peacefully co-exist with. 2.)Defeating those terrorists and terrorist organizations who are operating in Iraq. If the terrorists were not carrying out their acts of war in Iraq, they would be doing it elsewhere. Until the terrorists are defeated, I think it is premature to say we have "won" or that we have "liberated" Iraq. If we left now, the terrorists and other former regime elements would quickly rout the current elected government from power and we would be right back where we started or worse. We cannot allow the terrorists to use Iraq as a sanctuary, as they did when Saddam was in power.

What counts as winning the war on terror? Winning the war on terror involves the following: 1.) Preventing another 911 style attack. 2.)Changing the behaviour of those governments who support and sponsor terrorism. 3.)If # 2 fails, then removing those governments from power.

Preventing 911 style attacks is largely defensive in nature. Changing the behaviour of the terrorist supporting governments is more pro-active in nature.

It seems to me that the former Iraq government, the former Afghan government and Osama Bin Laden, the threat posed by Iran, and the current threat posed by Al Qaeda need to be viewed as interconnected. We tend to view them all as separate. To use an example, we viewed the Japanese and German theaters as multiple fronts in the same war during WWII and not as separate wars.

I would largely agree with the assessment that we are winning the war on terrorism. As of this writing, there have been no more 911 style attakcs on the American homeland. The main value of the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that they have diverted terrorist resources that would have been used elsewhere had we not intervened.

I addressed the issue of Saddam's WMD's on the Duelfer thread dated 4/28/05. Either he did not have them or they were moved in the run up to the war. I hope he did not have them, however, I'm not that optimistic. I suspect they were moved. I think the terms Bush used were the threat was "grave and gathering" to describe the threat but I could be wrong. In any event when you consider who Saddam had for allies, I don't think this was a case of 'poor little Saddam' vs 'the big bad USA.'

I hope this addresses everything.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Jeremiah

You raise some interesting points. The American public was never told difficult this would be.

Brad

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make.

Short

This thing you refer to as "nation building" is an attempt at a long range solution to the problem of Islamic terrorists. Unless we change the situation on the ground, in the terrorist supporting nations, this problem will only get worse. I may not agree with all of the methods being used by the Bush administration and our coalition allies but this doesn't change the fact that the situation on the ground, in those countries, will have to be changed. I suspect whatever form of government they choose will be acceptable to the American government and the governments of our coalition allies just as long as it does not sponsor or support terrorist attacks against America or its allies.

Short thanks for the props.

I have made it abundantly clear that we're winning in Iraq. We have already made incredible progress in Iraq by ridding the country of Saddam, having democratic elections, and putting in place a government. We're also training the new Iraqi army and police. We don't need 100,000+ troops to fight in Iraq, a place that inherited the War on Terror thanks to the occupation of our military. Sure we can interconnect all of the regimes together if it makes more simplistic to understand BUT We have to maintain a "smaller" presence in training the new army and police forces of Iraq while also including troops to help fight the "weakening" insurgency. Now, B. Poster, You're saying that we're being premature in claiming victory when the reality is that YES we did "liberate" Iraq from a brutal tyrannt and the reason would become a sanctuary is because we occupy their backyard. Do you know the old acronym NIMBY? Not In My Back Yard? Well I'd bet this is how these insurgents feel about our existence in the Middle East.

Now... To address point #3 on "What counts as winning the War on Terror?"-- I would like ask you then, How many countries are we going to invade in the next five years? Because, I don't see Americans becoming more tolerant in our use of force in the War on Terror unless we're attacked within the homeland again. We're stretching out our armed forces tenfold while the Army cannot meet recruiting levels. We must find a way in maintaining a "smaller" presence while staying on the offensive in the War on Terror.

Finally,

"I think the terms Bush used were the threat was "grave and gathering" to describe the threat but I could be wrong. In any event when you consider who Saddam had for allies, I don't think this was a case of 'poor little Saddam' vs 'the big bad USA."

Ok... You're right on the use of language, yet, the Bush administration, I believe, termed Iraq as and "immediate threat, an urgent threat, an imminent threat" and the administration kept going and going on about how Iraq threaten the US . I will say that, yes, It was the USA vs. poor little Saddam, Where were his allies when we first went into Iraq? They were non-existent and now you have an insurgency created by the vacuum of our power that existed directly after the liberation of Iraq.

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

These are quotes from www.americanprogess.org

The facts are on the table as to the language used in describing Iraq as a "threat" to our nation.

We know now that Iraq was nothing more than a country w/ a tyrannt who was not a "grave and gathering" threat to the security of our nation.

Once the Baathists went down, support went up because it was concrete good news. Elections! Whisky Democracy Sexy!

But there's more to it than just those three, and that's where the hard slog comes in. Without a lot of obvious good news, and a huge emphasis on any and all bad news, public support has eroded. Not a shocker. In order to prove their own theories correct, many in the media are actively trying to erode that support.

In addition, I think that we aren't as patient a people as we used to be. World War II got quite dark for a long time, and there was far more privation at home - rationing, conscription, and a far deeper casualty toll (both in numbers and percentage of population). Don't forget that this also followed the Depression. We call them the Greatest Generation for a reason - they took it all on, and toughed it out; then they were the ones who fought the Cold War afterward. The following generations are the ones who complain about the wrong brand of cola in the vending machine, grouse that 2.0 gHz is waaaaaay too slow a processor, and lean on the horn twelve nanoseconds after the light's gone green.

Spitfly

I am going to try and address your points. I agree we have made progress in Iraq. I don't know if I would call it "incredible." My position would be "cautiously optimistic." Training the Iraqi army is a good thing. They will need to defend their own country. We will not stay forever. Actually I think we need more troops in Iraq, not less. I'm not sure where we are going to get them. I think a draft might be a good idea but, at this time, I don't think the American people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice. I don't think the notion that Iraq inherited the war on terror because of our presence is entirely correct. It seems to me Saddam served as a terrorist supporter long before we got there. The following articles provide more detail on this.
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/000/000378fmxyz.asp www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/000/000/003jggyi.asp? www.naztionalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/14ixnewsrop.html
Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the Al Qaeda members involved in the 1993 WTC attacks was given sanctuary and a salary by the former Iraqi government. Overall it is probably debatable just how strong his links were to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups but it appears to me terrorists were operating in Iraq long before we got there. While it is true we are in the terrorists back yard, this is as a reaction to their actions. The Iraqi terrorists have shown very little respect to the "back yard." They have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. American foregin policy is not perfect and has been down right atrocious at times but I see our actions there primarily as a reaction to what they have done. Diplomacy will only work when both sides are willing. Right now they are simply not willing. Sure they may use diplomacy to buy themsleves time to plan for and arm themsleves for the next attack. To date, the primary benefit to the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan has been that it has placed the terrorists on the defensive. If these terrorists are true Iraqi patriots, they have a strange way of showing it. Most of the people they are killing seem to be Iraqis.

How many countries are we going to invade in the next five years? I hope and pray we don't have to invade anymore. We may not have too. Attempting to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq appears to have started a chain reaction with more countries now clamoring for it. For example, Syria appears to be leaving Lebanon with absolutely no overt threats from us.

I don't think it is entirely accurate to suggest that Saddam's allies were non-existent. They are the ones managing the insurgency. Syria and probably Iran are helping with the insurgency. I think the insurgency was planned well in advance of the invasion.

Regarding the quotes you give, Iraq did present a threat to the USA. As David Kay pointed out the threat was mostly based on how he might cooperate with terrorists in the use of WMD against us. Bush spoke to soon when he made his 4/24/03 and his 7/17/03 quotes. These quotes sound a bit like the bone-headed "mission accomplished" line.

Viewing the threats as interconnected as opposed to separate I do not think is a simplistic way of looking at it. Quite the contrary. I believe it makes things much more complicated.

Saddam's overt beligerence and support for world wide terrorism including Al Qaeda made him a major threat to our country who needed to be dealt with. I still think, if we fail in Iraq, we fail in the war on terrorism. We have made good progress to date but I think it is too early to declare victory.

Finally, the biggest threats to America are not from Islamic Extremists but are from Russia and China. I am concerned that all of the focus on the Islamic Extremists may cause us to loose sight of far more dangerous threat. By the way, do you know who two of Saddam's biggest allies was? None other than Russia and China. It causes me to go hmmm.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

B.Poster I think your threat assessment is just plain wrong.

Russia doesn't have much of a military left, and the only way it can pose real threats is through proliferating its arms to Mideast nations.

China is not a threat to us either. The United States is far too lucrative a trading partner for China to be interested in threatening us. The only threat they will pose will be economic, not militaristic, and I feel our economic situation will continue as it has so far, being mutually beneficial.

Not just Iraq, Not just Iran, not just Syria, not just Al Qaeda. Not one of these nations alone is a threat to the United States. The Middle East Status Quo as it stands now is in and of itself a threat to the interests of the United States of America. And so that status quo must be changed.

As to your inquiries about what military actions we will be taking in five years.

I would be willing to bet that in about two years, if negotiatians do not work, the US will help to support a coup in Iran. That is a revolution that is already clearly on its way, even the Mullahs themselves know it. It will not, in my opinion, be an Iraq-style nation building experiment however.

I also believe that sometime in the next five years we will take action of some kind against Damascus.

"There's no turning back." - Over the long haul America's best weapons for fighting terrorism - not just the tactic, but the ideologies behind it, the worldviews - are not military but idealistic and economic.

So 1) "Saddamism" (Stalinism + Arab nationalism + anti-Semitsm) was an inert obstacle in the confrontation between Western liberalism and militant Islamic fundamentalism.

2) Roughly half the populations of many Arab countries are under 21, dramatically different than what we're used to in Europe and America. In 10, 15 years these people will reach their most productive years. We've seen results of the last generation of the madrassas (Islamic secondary schools). Now let's see what the introduction of the stock market, an entrepeneurial middle-class, and free trade with the US, EU, Israel and Asia can do.

Cell phones, internet, clean drinking water, and the opportunity to give your children a better life than you had - that's a winning strategy.

(Not a watertight annalysis, but a sketch of how I understand our strange new war on terrorism.)

Ben-T

You may be right. My threat assessment may be just plain wrong. Frankly I hope it is!! While it is true that Russia's conventional military may be no threat to the United States, you should not forget about the nuclear arsenal of several thousand nuclear war heads and they are working hard to upgrade it. China uses trade as a weapon against the United States and their huge numbers make them a growing threat. China is also closely allied with Russia. An excellent source of information about Russia can be found at www.jrnyquist.com. Russia appears to be quite busy proliferating its weapons to the middle east. Russia has agreed to sell highly advanced missles to Syria. Russia is assisting Iran in its nuclear ambitions. Russia has agreeed to sell weapons to the Palestinian Authority. Russia has been quite busy indeed. It seems that these nations all clearly work together but how strong these alliances are I am not sure.

Perhaps Americans are starting to realize the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. Honestly, I've never understood the War on Terror because it's impossible to wage war against a general noun and sounds like the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on poverty, and all the other "wars" conjured up by the left to loot American taxpayers and restrict Constitutional liberties.

What was the casus belli for the war in Iraq? It was Iraq's WMD that could eventually target Americans. Without any WMD our presence in Iraq doesn't even have a tangential or theoretical connection to terrorism. Reconstructing Iraq, eliminating a Sunni insurgency, insuring Iraq is democratic is overt nation-building that wastes resources, time, and American lives. Concern over winning (or losing) the War on Terror is misplaced since there is no War on Terror -- it exists as a platitude to rationalize war efforts that are unrelated to America's national security. Don't worry if Americans "lose" Iraq. Worry if America is safer, if our borders are more secure, and if our foreign policy isn't creating more terrorists than it's eliminating.

according to the CIA Post-War Comprehensive Report released on September 30th 2004, acquiring a nuclear and chemical arsenal was a top priority of Saddam's:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Let's not forget the fact that

A.)Many a hastily evacuated chemical weapons lab, some with stockpiles of Anthrax and Smallpox still inside, were uncovered.

B.) Serin Gas Artillery Shells were launched at US troops by the Republican Guard during the war.

C.) Even more Serin Gas Artillery Shells, as well as large stockpiles of Smallpox and Anthrax were found in Baghdad

D.) High Level Al Qaeda Warlorod Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was living in Baghdad in government apartments and on Saddam's payroll prior to the invasion.

E.) Large truck convoys were seen leaving Iraq and entering Baath party controlled Syria on the eve of the invasion.

Then there is the multitude of other, non-WMD related ways the Iraq War serves US interests, but we can get into that later.

P.S: To imply that Liberating the Iraq people was not a main Casus Belli for this war, prior to the invasion, is simply to lie.

I like Eric Wilds.

I just skimmed through the thread, not really jumping in here, but wanted to mention to Nightfly that the MSM supported the Iraq invasion from the get-go. There was absolutely no significant opposition to this boondoggle at all from the Democrats or the lapdog media.

Eric

I agree with you the "War on Terror" could be better defined. Part of the problem with this is political correctness, in some cases, prohibits us from saying out loud that we are at war with Islamic Extremists who wish to subjigate us. This is making the job much more difficult. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are Islamic Extremists organizations. The former Iraqi government aided these terrorists. A number of other governments currently aid and abet these terrorists. Actually the war in Iraq has everything to do with this war. The links I provided earlier will show how Al Qaeda and the former Iraqi regime worked together. If your only source is the main stream media, I don't think you will understand the nature of the threat. I agree that we should do more to secure our borders.

You seem to imply that you think our foreign policy is creating more terrorists than it's eliminating. It is a very real concern. This is one of the favorite lines of leftists. I tend to disagree with the leftists on this one. It seems the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, has given consideration to attacking Americans on their home soil but has been unable to. The reason, a lack of "willing martyrs." A link to this is www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1037626,00.html Ralph Peters, in his article at, www.nypost.com/postopinion/opencolumnists/41587.htm refers to a message Bin Laden sent to Al Zarqawi. It seems Bin Laden wants Al Zarqawi to focus more on America and less on Iraq. It seems to me the operations in Iraq have had the effect of diverting terrorist resources that would have been used elsewhere.

My ana-lysis is certainly not perfect but it appears to me the best way to create more terrorists would be to withdraw from Iraq right now. The terrorists would quickly overrun the elected government and establish a regime simillar to the one we removed and we would be right back where we started, only worse. The terrorists would now be emboldened, at having defeated America and its coalition allies. This would only encourage more attacks. Bottom line, as I see it, loose in Iraq and the war is lost and Americans and other freedom loving people are less safe.

It seems to me, the person who made this pole either does not grasp the situation or they are playing a political game.

Brian

I think you are right. The main stream media did support "Operation Iraqi Freedom" at the outset. I'm not entirely certain what changed their minds. I think it is probably because the main stream media largely supports the Democrats and even repeats their talking points. Some in the Democratic party figured out they could use the war for partisian political purposes and this is when the main stream media changed sides. Recently some in the main stream media have been getting excited and praising the attempts at democracy in Syria, however, they generally have not given the Bush administration any credit here. Without "Operation Iraqi Freedom" I think it is highly unlikely Syrai would have even discussed leaving Lebanon. I think some of them may be getting concerned that the policies of the Bush administration might actually work, so they have decided they need to preen for the cameras. They may have decided they need to hedge their bets a bit. I'm not sure if this explains it, but I do think it is certainly plausible.

A few points:
1) The casus belli for the war was Iraq's WMD stockpile that could target Americans. I don't recall "conservatives" or hardly anyone else for that matter rising in opposition to the U.N embargo against Iraq that was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. I don't take seriously the feigned concern of "conservatives" who supported the draconian embargo and now say the well-being of the Iraqi people should be a matter of U.S. foreign policy. If this concern is genuine why does manifest only when it provides an excuse for war?

2) The War on Terror is a sloppy phrase but politically useful. It creates the misimpression that the people we kill in Iraq are organically part of the same structure that attacked us on 9/11. Even though there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 using the umbrella term "terrorists" molds them together in the minds of most Americans. However, saying we are at war with radical Islam is also inaccurate because Saddam's Ba'atth party is secular and nationalistic.

3) It is not just "lefists" who wonder if our occupation of Iraq is creating more "terrorists" than it's eliminating. This was also a concern raised by Donald Rumsfeld who said we didn't have the "metrics" to know. So calling it a War on Terror or a war against radical Islam sacrifices truth for simplicity. It's like referring to the westward expansion after the Civil War as a battle between the Cowboys and Indians. In Iraq we're fighting disgruntled Sunnis, Shi'a nationalists (al-Sadr), a handeful of insurgents, and those with their own personal vendetta.

4) The argument that "we're fighting them over there so we don't fight them here," is now part of the Neocon echo chamber and has already been elevated to a sacred axiom right up there with "America is a nation of immigrants." Unfortunatetly, it doesn't make a bit of sense. It's impervious to the facts -- can you prove America would've been attacked if we didn't invade Iraq -- it's inconsistent with our own stated goals in Iraq. Currently, we are training "security forces" in Iraq who can manage the situation after our forces draw down and eventually leave (I hope). But if "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," then training Iraqi security forces is pointless because once we pick up and leave all these "terrorists" in Iraq will follow us right back to the States. So turning security over to Iraqis isn't going to stop one terrorist. Of course I doubt anyone really believes it; people want simple excuses to rationalize the war. They don't care if the excuses make sense or not.

Eric

I'm a bit pressed for time but I will try to address your points.

1.) The embargo appears to have little effect on the regime, especially given the UN Oil-for-food scandal. Any Iraqi civilian deaths are the fault of Saddam not of the Americans or its coalition allies. He could have easily stopped supporting international terrorisim or targeting Americans, furthermore, even if sanctions could work it would have meant starving that country. The folks who howled about the sanctions should be quite pleased that Saddam has been removed because this means the sanctions are over now. These are the folks who seem to be most vocal against Operation Iraqi Freedom. I actually believe for them to pretend to care about Iraqi civilians is disingenous.

2.)I agree the war on terror is a bit of a sloppy term. I explained why I think this is the term the government used in a previous post. I'm not sure it is quite accurate to suggest that Saddam's regime was secularist. It has been documented that some of Saddam's hench men would shout Islamic Extremist propaganda while executing enemies of the state. During the first Gulf War, Saddam could be seen praying to Mecca. Even if we assume the main stream media talking point is correct, it forgets one of the oldest maxims in foreign policy, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

3.) While it is not certain whether or not Iraq participated in 911, it does seem certain that they aided and abetted the organization who did carry out the attacks. I think one of the links I provided, in a previous post, provides evidence to suggest some of the 911 hijackers visited Iraq prior to 911. Even if Iraq did not particpate in 911, they supported the organization who did. For that matter, I'm not aware that Germany participated in the planning or execution of Pearl Harbor during WWII.

3.) Are we creating more terrorists is a legitimate concern. The links I provided appear to me to suggest otherwise. The fact that there have been no more 911 style attacks, as of this writing, also tend to diminish the credibility of the theory that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. We are fighting Islamic Extremists. Sometimes to say say so causes one to run afoul of the politically correct thought police. The terrorits certainly don't seem like Iraqi patriots. They have managed to kill far more Iraqis than American or Coalition troops or so it would seem.

4.)Will the terrorists simply follow us over here once we leave is a valid concern. It is unknown at this time whether or not the current plan will work. I hope and pray that it does. I suspect the terrorists will fight any government that does not submit to their will. This is why we have to defeat the terrorists, so that they are unable to follow us here. I cannot prove that the war in Iraq has prevented or delayed another 911, however, the fact that al-Zarqawi has been unable to find "willing martyrs" and the fact that jihadists have recently had to "scour" Europe looking for recruits to fight in Iraq tends to lend credence to that theory. The statement that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than it has stopped is part of the leftist echo chamber. It just does not seem supportable by the facts, on the ground.

Just a couple of responses to Eric.

On the subject of WMDs: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Again. Acquiring a Nuclear Chemical arsenal was a top priority of Saddam's government.
Moving on:

It has been a prime point of the Bush Doctrine that the Status Quo in the Middle East has become a Catch 22 of threats to US interests and is no longer sustainable. The Bush Doctrine clearly lays out a offensive based, preemptive "Get rid of the snakes by cleaning out the Snake Pit" mentality.

If this is, as you seem to assert, not the right way to go about the War on Terror, what exactly do you think we should be doing to fight the War on Terror? Because we tried the "just hunt down Terrorist cells and attempt to stop them from making the next big attack" approach. In fact up until 9/11 we had been trying it since 1979. That tactic was a consistent failure.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq were the doing of the international community with the support of the United States. For those who believed that Iraq was supporting terrorism, developing WMD, and threatenting the United States there simply is no moral case to be made for sanctions. It's possible someone might conclude through careful moral calculus that the deaths of innocent Iraqis is a fair price to pay for disarming Iraq and insuring Saddam can't invade another country. However, those who supported the sanctions would breathlessly state that the sanctions "weren't working" and that Iraq was producing WMD, working on nuclear weapons, and was a global threat to peace. So what's the moral case for sanctions if you concede that they don't work? The only consequence is to kill lots of Iraqis for naught.

Whether or not we are creating more "terrorist" is a concern but we know for certain we are creating more armed opposition. In Iraq we have been fighting a Sunni insurgency as well as a (temporary) insurgency among Muktada al-Sadr's militia. These conflicts are the result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq and have nothing to do with terrorism or making America more secure.

Trying to find Iraq's connection to 9/11 through nth degrees of separation doesn't prove Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11. It's possible members of al-Qaeda were in Iraq just as they were in England, Germany, Switzerland, Iran, Pakistan, Australia and dozens of other countries. "Links to terrorism" is a weasel phrase because it tries to establish guilt by degrees of separation. This kind of thinking can show "links" between Porter Goss, Donald Rumsfeld -- he met with Saddam in 1983 -- and others. The State Department never listed Iraq as a supporter of al-Qaeda -- the two countries were Pakistan and the Sudan. The one "terrorist" group Iraq did support was the MEK, an anti-Iranian terrorist group that is now receiving the graces of Neocons like Michael Ledeen and Daniel Pipes. So the refrain "Saddam supported terrorism," is very difficult to take seriously when people in our own government now support the same terrorist group.

Terrorists will not come over here anymore than the Vietnamese did. The insurgency in Iraq doesn't represent a monolithic ideological force. Some are there as Sunnis, others as Shia, some as nationalists. None of these insurgents would have any reason to follow us back to America once we vacate their country. The absence of another 9/11 style event is hardly proof the war in Iraq has prevented one. 9/11 was a stroke of luck, a rare event that probably couldn't be repeated even if the terrorists attempted it. So I see the events differently: since there has been no 9/11 style event it's proof the war in Iraq was a waste.

Iraq had no nuclear or chemical arsenal. The CIA obviously didn't have an accurate picture of the reality in Iraq so why should I assume they have an accurate picture of Iraq's priorities? Besides, "priorities" can't threaten anyone and that's their opinion and moreover even desiring chemical or nuclear weapons doesn't even show that Iraq had an intention of using them against the United States.

The right way to go about the War on Terror is to realize there's no such thing. America should take care of it's security: protect it's borders, pull it troops in foreign countries home, and leave the Middle East alone. The War on Terror seems to imply that America must take some proactive effort to overturn every regime in the Middle East. Invading other countries because you find their regimes disagreeable isn't defense; it's conquest.

"Trying to find Iraq's connection to 9/11 through nth degrees of separation doesn't prove Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11. It's possible members of al-Qaeda were in Iraq just as they were in England, Germany, Switzerland, Iran, Pakistan, Australia and dozens of other countries"

-Eric Wilds

Actually, high level Al Qaeda warlord Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was living in Iraq in posh government apartments and was on the government payroll.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi isn't even a member of al-Qaeda and referred to Saddam's Ba'ath regime as "repulsive." After the U.S. invasion of Iraq there have been reports that Osama bin Laden has tried to enlist Zarqawi, but Zarqawi had his own terrorist organization.

Zarqawi may not have been Saddam's biggest fan, but it sure didn't stop him from cozying up to Iraqi Intelligence Agencies:

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003927.html

What do you want, the guy is a two timing murderer.

As to your assertion that he is not a member of Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is not called "The Al-Qaeda Network" for no reason. It is a large alliance/network of very many different terrorist factions.

His ties to Bin Laden whoever, could not be stronger:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1606660,00.html

Eric

So what's the moral case for sanctions if you conclude they don't work? Actually I have really never liked sanctions. They don't seem to work very well and they seem to give the enemy a huge propaganda tool but as you seem to imply someone may have concluded they were worth it, if they could prevent Saddam from being a threat to world peace. They may have worked at one time but Saddam had undermined them due to UN Oil-for-Food. The facts on the ground were different in the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom than they were in early 1991. If you have read the information written by David Kay and Charles Duelfer you would know that sanctions had become untennable, Saddam had worked hard to keep his WMD experts together and he maintained the desire to build WMD. This was a growing threat that we were no longer going to be able to contain through sanctions. I'm skeptical of the numbers bandied about regarding innocents kiiled because of sanctions. They vary between 500,000 to 2,000,000. These people can't seem to get their facts straight. I think the numbers are whatever those who promote them need for them to be to support their propaganda purposes. In any event any dead innocents are the responsibility of Saddam and his hench men, not ot the Americans or their coalition allies. Saddam had ample time and incentive to stop threatening America and stop supporting terrorists. In retrospect, I think we should have removed Saddam Huessein from power at the end of the first gulf war, but as has often been said, hindsight is always 20/20.

I'm not sure if we are creating more armed opposition or not. For lack of a better ana-logy, this seems to be very much a see-saw affair. Currently things don't seem to be going as well as I would like. The armed opposition you refer to is being supported by Syria, Iran, and probably others. When Fallujah was taken last year, we found fighters from all over the middle east. I don't think this is some kind of nationalist movement. They are killing more Iraqis than they are American or Coalition troops. Engaging the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere throughoout the world has everything to do with national security. These groups and their supporting states are thinking globally. We need to do likewise. The goal of the Islamic Extremists as quoted by Extremists themsleves is to "raise the flag of Islam throughout the environs of the universe" (paraphrase.) Changing the Iraqi regime has removed a major supporter and financer of international terrorism.

Iraq provided substantial assistance to Al Qaeda. The links I provided earlier will establish this. Whether Al Qaeda had any help from Iraq in planning or carrying out 911 is not known. What is known is that Iraq supported Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates. Iraq provided sanctuary for one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. I'll be the first to admit America has sometimes made bad choices in who it has supported. These things need to be understood in context. Its interesting you would bring up Michael Leeden and Daniel Pipes. These two men have little, if any, influence over American foreign policy. By the way supporting an anti-Iranian group makes good sense. Perhaps you have not heard. The Iranian leadership has threatened to "burn the roots of the Anglo-Saxon race." The need to oppose Iran also explains the support America once gave to Saddam. So called Neo-Conservatives are only useful to the Republican party to the extent that they agree with the leaders of the Republican party.

Vietnam was a regional war. The terrorists operating in Iraq and elsewhere are thinking in global terms. At least, their leaders are. This has been explained on a number of news reports. The links I provided earlier also explain that these people are thinking globally. So, yes they will follow us here. Removing the former Iraqi regime has eliminated a source of financial support for the terrorists as well as a sanctuary for the terrorists.

As I said, I cannot prove the war in Iraq has prevented or delayed another 911. I think it has. The Time article and the NY Post article I provided links to lend credence to the theory. The belief that the Iraq war has created more terrorists than it has stopped seems to be supportable only by the talking points of the main stream media. 911 was hardly a stroke of luck on the part of the terrorists. It was the culmination of weak polices on the part of the United States and its allies. If Osama Bin Laden is going to spend that much effort on an attack that was unlikely to succeed, then he is a stupid military leader and not the "worthy opponent" that General Tommy Franks described. Actually many sources warned about attacks such as this years before they occurred.

I would not be so quick to declare that Iraq did not have a WMD arsenal. The weapons were probably either moved to Syria in the convoys that went to Syria in the run up to the war or he did not have them. I'm just not optimistic enough to conclude he did not have the WMD arsenal. Iraq worked with Al Qaeda on WMD progams. Al Qaeda threatened the United States. Iraq certainly had the desire to help our enemies. I think this lends strong credence to the theory that he would have used these weapons against the USA. In fact, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and John McCain alluded to this possibility.

"The right way to go about winning the war on terror is to realize there's no such thing" If only you were right!! This would be quite comforting, if it were true. Unfortunately it is not. Denying reality will not change it. I agree that we should do more to protect our borders. I think we probably do have troops in too many places. They are where they are either because the host governments want them there or they are deployed against threats to national security or the security of our allies. American foreign policy is not perfect but it does not exist in a vacum. American foreign policy in the middle east and elsewhere is, in many instances, a reaction to what others do. I would also suggest that the middle east needs to leave us alone. When the terrorists give up their insane desire for world domination it may become possible to negotiate an agreement that will be acceptable to all. Until this happens we have no partner for peace. The only option is to defeat them. I really don't think we could overturn every government in the middle east. I don't think it will come to that. Attempting to bring democracy to Iraq has had effects elsewhere in the middle east, such as Lebanon. It seems the Syrians are withdrawing with no overt pressure from the Americans. I find being ruled by Islamic Extremists very undesireable. I think the best ana-logy is WWII. Germany never attacked the American homeland but we acted proactively to stop them from gaining world dominion. Like Nazi Germany, the terrorists think globally. I think pulling our troops from Iraq right now would be disasterous. It would embolden the terrorists and would be likely to lead to more terrorist attacks.

Eric, I'm not sure how much I agree with you, but it's truly refreshing to hear the opposition put so well. The lefties can't find their own tuchus with both hands and a copy of Grey's Anatomy. I'm glad you're around with actual reasons against and not just the mendacious, reflexive whining of the modern Democratic Party. (Gods, Truman would make Zell Miller sound like a ballerina if he were still around.)

The sanctions against Iraq have been in place since the end of the first Gulf War while the Oil-for-Food program didn't start until 1996. By this time the sactions against Iraq had already taken a toll. No one knows the exact number of innocent Iraqis who died because Iraq doesn't have a census and no records are kept, so all figures will be estimates. Some might say the toll went as high as 2 million and others as low as 50,000. Regardless there is no moral case to be made for sanctions if you believe they haven't prevented Iraq from reacquiring WMD, rebuilding its military and threatening the world. The oil-for-food scandal didn't provide Iraq an opportunity to rebuild its forces so while technically it might be a scandal it hardly compares to an embargo that reduces Iraq's civilian population to destitution. However, my point concerning the sanctions is that the "conservatives" who profess a renewed humanitarian interest in the Iraqi people ("liberation") strikes me as insincere. Where was this concern for the past ten years? Why does this "concern" only manifest when it happens to provide an excuse to wage war and/or support President Bush?

We can call the conflict and violence in Iraq whatever we want -- War on Terror, insurgency, Islamic extremism, an incipient civil war etc. Naturally if you're a Bush partisan you like the label War on Terror because it connects the invasion of Iraq as retribution for 9/11 or as a preventive measure against another 9/11. However, we need to understand the origin of the violence in Iraq, and why it exists. The most siginificant effect of our invasion of Iraq and our creation of a fledging "democracy" has been to usher in a gigantic social revolution. A "democratic" Iraq moves the Shi'a into positions of power, followed by the Kurds, while the Sunnis -- once the masters -- are now out in the cold and left eating the scraps. A quick and decisive overthrow of any power elite almost always creates violence, opposition and uprising. So to refer to this outbreak of violence as "terrorism" really hits wide of the mark. The Sunni aren't thinking or acting "globally" but out of desperation, out of being thrown off their pedestal. The recent outcropping of violence isn't out of a desire to usher in a global change, but represent parochial concerns -- it's classic sectarian violence. It's more along the lines of what Brent Scowcroft described as an "incipient civil war." So far from fighting "terrorism" all U.S. soldiers are doing in Iraq is getting caught in the middle of a vicious blood feud that threatents to capsize Iraq's new government. This is the same sort of conflict that exists in Kosovo between the Albanian Muslims or Kosovo Liberation Army and the Orthodox Serbs -- or the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka or the IRA. When you look at the violence in Iraq you see the "War on Terror" or "terrorism" but what I see is just normal sectarian violence that isn't America's concern. When U.S. troops vacate Iraq -- the sooner the better - and if no Sunnis follow us back to the United States, then I think my anlysis will be correct. This is what I mean when I say there is no global War on Terror. In Iraq we are witnessing sectarian violence, power grabs, and perhaps the the first shockwaves of a full blown civil war. None of this has anything to do with terrorism.

In regards to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi there isn't much solid information. Allegedly he passed through Iran, then made his way to Kurdistan and formed ties with Ansar al-Islam. This was a Talibanish like group that desired to overthrow Iraq's secular Ba'ath party. The Kurds said the group was actually being funded by Iran and that Zarqawi hated both the Shi'a and Saddam. "Cozying up to an intelligence" agent is a value laden description not supported by the facts. Enemies have "links" just as allies do. Maybe the intelligence agent was there to strike a truce, ma ybe he was there to gather information, or maybe he was there to bribe Zarqawi. Going from contacts, to links, to support runs on conjecture, not evidence. That's like saying Donald Rumsfeld's contact with Saddam Hussein in 1983 proves he supported the gassing of Halabja -- nonsense.

David Kay did point out that's it's assuming too much to presume that Iraq hid its weapons or shipped them off to Syria unless you can establish the PRIOR fact that Iraq had facilities that could produce WMD. David Kay said he found no evidence of any factory or facility or enterprise that was engaged in producing WMD, so until you can find evidence of this you can't assume any WMD were hidden/shipped to Syria etc. It would be best to give up on the WMD angle because before long it will mature into parody right up there with UFOs and Elvis sightings.

Okay. I think everyone here agrees that sanctions were generally a bad thing for the Iraqi people. We can move past it.

Okay moving on.

Neoconservatives originally rose to political prominence in the Republican party with the election of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan, there was George HW Bush, a man who was a decided paleocon and didn't want any Reaganite NeoCons mucking up his administration. The NeoCon faction of the Reagan Administration was extremely unhappy when George HW Bush became President.

Clinton was then elected. When Clinton was electeed the GOP became the same kind of frothing reactionaries we see on the political Left now. If the left today is mindlessly "Anybody but Bush" the right back then could arguably have been "Anybody but Clinton" Either way it's not particuarly relevant. What is important however, is that Neoconservatives were not the boys running the show in the GOP when Clinton was in office. It was The Gingrich Brigade that held that title.

Neoconservatives have again risen to power under the banner of Bush II. Clearly when given the power NeoCons, without the threat of the USSR looming, have created a very concerned and pro-active foreign policy in Iraq. So in short I wouldnt say this is a disingenious compassion, I would say that simply the NeoCons werent in charge before, and now they are.

In regards to what we call the War in Iraq. Your comments on this were witty and valid, but I am not exactly sure how relevant they really were to the conversation. I think the Neoconservative link between the War on Terror and Iraq stems from The Bush Doctrine on the War on Terror, which calls for pro-active, pre-emptive, Middle East Democratization.

I agree with you that the WMD issue is really pretty much a joke, they werent there. I never did think they were there. However I doubt the WMD issue will ever become a joke, as the case for WMDs in Iraq was certainly stronger than the case against them pre-invasion.

We obviously cannot know what Zarqawi's exact intentions were or are now. We here are not privy to the inner monologue of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, so we will have to judge him by his actions. And judging him by his actions, his links to Saddam's government can not be swept under the rug. Whehter Zarqawi was a fan of Saddam or not, he had links with the Baathist government and was maintaining/pursuing those links prior to the invasion.

In recap, I would still like to hear your ideas on an altenative to the Bush doctrine. Playing defense, as it were, or going after precision tactics, was the US strategy on Islamic terrorism from (roughly) 1979 up until 9/11. The tactic proved itself to be a magnificent failure time and time again. The conclusion the Bush Doctrine comes to is a conclusion that Neoconservatives came to long ago: The Status Quo of the Middle East is a Catch 22 of threats to US interests, and to perpetuate the Mideast Status Quo is simply to perpetuate the same factors that are causing these problems for us in the first place. Leaving these governments in place is nothing short of masochistic.

What are your ideas on how we should be pursuing greater Middle East policy at this point, with regards to the threat of Islamic Terrorism?

"Why does this concern only manifest when it provides an excuse to wage war and/or support President Bush?" If you have read my posts here at flynnfiles you will know that I am no Bush fan. I think I already addressed this. I will try again. Sanctions may have been effective for a time but since the end of the first Gulf War amd the inception of oil for food the situation on the ground had changed. This meant our strategy needed to change. Saddam was a dictator who had excersized absolute control over his realm. I find it highly unlikely that he would not have known how many people live in his country. As stated previously, the anti-war left cannot even get their numbers straight. I am beginning to think the numbers will be whatever they need to be to support the pro-terrroists propaganda machine. Even if we assume the numbers are correct, Saddam was only being constrained by sanctions that were becoming unsustainable. The anti-war left should be praising the Bush administration for removing Saddam, so that the sanctions can now be lifted. Yet the anti-war left who howled and screeched about the sanctions and the poor Iraqis are now howling and screeching about the effort to remove Saddam. Any concern they have for Iraq, appears to be hypocritical. If they gave a wit about Iraqis, they would be glad to see Saddam gone and would get behind the effort to improve the situation. As stated previously, any and all deaths as a result of sanctions, are the fault of Saddam and his cronies not the Americans or their allies. Saddam had ample motive and opportunity to stop being a general menace to America and to world peace. He chose not to do so. This meant we had to undertake whatever methods possible to contain him. Also, for reasons stated previously, I don't really like sanctions. If it would have been up to me, Saddam would have been removed back in 1991.

The links I provided previously spell out much evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together in a very cooperative relationship. They were working together against us and we had to deal with it. Perhaps they did not always work together but they were at this time. In fact their relations went back to the early 1990s. Again, I provide evidence to support this in the links I provided earlier in the thread. By the way, if the Sunnis are left out in the cold, this is their own choice. Tremendous efforts have been made to include them in the government. Indiviual Sunnis may not be thinking globally. I'm not even sure Al Zarqawi does either. He is more like a field general. This is why Bin Laden recently had to send him a message to remind him of the bigger picture. If we fail in Iraq, it will become a haven for international terrorism, as it was under Saddam and we would be right back where we started except worse. This was part of the rationale for changing the regime. Eliminate a terrorist sanctuary.

I think the links I presented earlier provide a wealth of information abut Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Saddam was a dictator who excersized absolute control over his realm. There was no real domestic oppostion to him that I am aware of. I don't think he would allow a terrorist group to set up in his country that was opposed to him. Ansar al Islam operated in areas loyal to Saddam and was funded by Saddam This organization was used and funded by Saddam to attack Kurds who opposed to Saddam. Al Qaeda and the former Iraqi regime described the relationship as "good." You can find documentation for this in Richard Minter's book, "Shadow War." Pages 179-185. The notion that there is not much solid information on Al Zarqawi does not seem to be true, however, it does seem to be true that their is not much information on Al Zarqawi that would support the leftist position.

As I stated previously, I'm not sure what happened to Saddam's WMD. David Kay documented the massive deception employed by the former regime. There were numerous reports of convoys of trucks going into Syria prior to the war. I think it would be best to know for sure before we give up on the search for WMD. Charles Duelfer has said he was unable to complete the investigation concerning the Syrian connection. I hope he did not have the WMD stockpile but I am simply not that optimistic.

I don't know if the Bush apporach will work. What I think is certain is the old approach was not going to work and we needed to change our approach. I'm not sure if my ana-lysis is correct. A careful study of the methods of Islamic Extremists and the links I provide lend credence to my theories. So far all you have given me is the standard leftist talking points. I believe, if we fail in Iraq, we fail in the broader war and this would only encourage more attacks.

With regards to the U.N. sanctions against Iraq we should recall the truism that even the best of intentions can lead to the worst of results. Perhaps the embargo was done with good intentions but ultimately we don't measure policies by their intentions but by their results and the results were catastrophic for the Iraqi people. Stating the sanctions were Saddam's fault is not exactly the way to describe it because it implies Saddam was responsible for the sanctions. And how can someone be responsible for something he isn't enforcing? One can argue that Saddam "deserved" the sanctions, but one cannot hold Saddam responsible for the sanctions.

The case for invading Iraq really came down to the existence of WMD. Without WMD the case for war goes up in a plume of black smoke. Throwing around phrases like "Saddam and al-Qaeda worked together," doesn't fit the facts nor does it even represent our own government's view of the facts. Here is a quote taken directly from the Department of State's own website:

"Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist groups. The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait."

"The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities."

So Iraq was not sponsoring terrorism against the West at all but was sponsoring terrorism against Iran through the MEK. Now many of the Neocons -- not just Ledeen and Pipes -- but Richard Perle and others want the State Department to reconsider the MEK as a non-terrorist group. Saddam's concerns were regional and he had no global ambitions to launch a crusade against the West. He wanted power; not martyrdom.

The only two countries that were listed as supporters of al-Qaeda were Pakistan and the Sudan -- neither country is an American concern at the moment.

The war in Iraq hasn't eliminated one major terrorist organization -- Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade etc because Iraq simply wasn't a sponsor of terrorism. Without WMD the war in Iraq is a disaster looking for an excuse.

You write: "By the way, if the Sunnis are left out in the cold, this is their own choice. Tremendous efforts have been made to include them in the government."

Again, we measure policies by results and not intentions. Perhaps it wasn't our intetion to leave the Sunnis out in the cold but that's exactly what happened and now we are paying a price for it as we suffer through a Sunni insurgency.

If we contrast 9/11 in light of the events in Iraq and elsewhere the absurdity will be shown in full relief. How many people thought after 9/11 the best way to respond would be to create a Sunni insurgency, lay the groundwork for a potential civil war, and allow Iran to increase its political presence in Iraq? Throwing around terms like "democracy," "liberty," and all that is political poetry and sounds nice but it's not reality. The Jacobins had "Liberty, Equality, and Fratenity," but the reality was the Reign of Terror.

A democracy is no better than the political parties running for office. So saying we're fighting for "democracy" in Iraq doesn't mean anything -- it's just an abstraction and generalization. Reality is made up of concretes and particulars and in reality it's the al-Dawa party that is gaining power in Iraq. Would any American vote for the al-Dawa party if they ran a presidential candiate in the United States? Of course not, so saying we're fighting for "democracy" really amounts to saying we're fighting for the al-Dawa Party. In other words, those who support fighting for democracy in Iraq are asking their fellow Americans to die for a poltical party they wouldn't vote for. This is just silliness and has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or making America more secure.

You write: "So far all you have given me is the standard leftist talking points."

This is just pettiness. This reminds me of Sean Hannity's reference to the Catholic Church as "wild-eyed liberal loonies," for not supporting Bush's war in Iraq. I guess Brent Scowcroft, the State Department, the Pope, the Catholic Just War theory, Charles Duelfer and David Kay are all just paid hacks of the anti-War left? This nastiness is becoming ever more common among self-styled "consrevatives" against those who don't engage in the proper rites of Bush worship.

My opposition to the war in Iraq is very clear 1)Creating a Sunni insurgency and possibly a civil war in Iraq is not a response to terrorism 2) Iraq was never a threat to this country and 3) I wouldn't vote for the al-Dawa party or any other Iraqi party, so I hardly -- in good conscience -- can tell my fellow Americans to die for such parties.

Ben,

You're right about the Neocons first ascending to power during the Reagan Administration but neither Reagan nor Bush Sr. were Neocons -- and nor was Bush Sr. a Paleocon. Paleoconservatism has no political reprsentation and probably never has. Bush Sr, Brent Scowcroft belong to the "realist" school of foreign policy but are not particularly conservative on foreign of domestic matters.

The Neocons did write letters, books, papers etc arguing for an overthrow of the Iraqi regime during the Clinton years but didn't make a mention about the gruesome harm the sanctions were doing to the Iraqi people so accusing them of faux compassion is perfectly legitimate.

The alternative to the Bush doctrine is prudence and an American first foreign policy, something along the lines of Robert Taft's idea that the supreme objective of America's foreign policy is to protect the liberty of Americans. Islamic terrorism is responsible for killing Americans and other people around the world, however is the best way to manage it to create a Sunni insurgency, inflame the Arab world against us, and possibly push old time allies, like the Turks, into an alliance with their ancient enemy the Russians? "Conservatives prefer the devil they know, to the devil they don't know," said Russell Kirk and leaving Saddam in power is much better than the circumstances we're now in. Stick to the devil you know.

I'm interested in making America more secure and I see no evidence the war in Iraq or a potential conflict in Iran, Syria, etc will do a thing to enhance our security. I see no evidence that creating a Sunni insurgency is in our interests or that shedding American blood in Iraq for the al-Dawa party protects American liberty or makes us more secure. Morever, I can't take seriously the idea that we are in danger when our borders and ports are more porous than the hull of the Titanic. Again, the war in Iraq was fought to disarm Iraq's WMD that never existed, everything that came after -- liberating the Iraqi people, democracy, fighting terrorism -- is post-war spin.

Let's continue on this discussion of Foreign Policy ideas. Everyone knows that WMDs werent there so it isn't very interesting to talk about it. And speculations about how compassionate NeoCons were during the Clinton years can't really be proven or disproven so it isn't a huge deal.

You say you would support an America First Foreign Policy. I agree with a policy that is concerned with "America First" But I don't think the idea that you posted fits that title.

Firstly the claim that "Conservative prefer the Devil they know to the Devil they don't know" carries no real weight. Long dead members of a long defunct political party are NOT who we should look to first in deciding American Foreign Policy.

So just some things I wanted to address.

There isn't much evidence to suggest that the Arab world has become inflamed against us because of Iraq. Firstly Turkey is not Arabic, it is Turkish and those living there are Turks, not Arabs. Secondly the democratic reforms we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt,Palestine, and Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, coupled with Lybia's revealment of their WMD program, and there request that the UN aid them in dismantling it, and the fact that the vast majority of the Iraqi population hate the Iraqi Insurgency (The Insurgents kill mainly Iraqis, not Americans.) would suggest just the oppisite. That Arab Opinion has switched to being more pro-American.

And finally, what was certainly not post-war spin was Bush's plan of Middle East Democratization. The Bush Doctrine advocates pre-emptive action and Mideast Democratization, and has since 9/11. Well before the War in Iraq.

But these are more trivial things. As Confucius once said "Mundane minds discuss events. Great minds discuss Ideas."

So let's talk ideas.

How do you think we can simultaneously make America more safe and maintain the current Mideast Status Quo? From 1979 to 9/11, a policy of maintaining the Status Quo turned out to be one that was nothing short of masochistic.

So what are your ideas on not just Iraq, but Greater Mideast Policy? The policy that you describe as "America First" has been tried and has been found wanting, for decades. You clearly feel that the Bush Doctrine is not the right path. Is there a third option, or are you advocating American Isolationism? I do not think that you are, but I am interested in your ideas on this.

Eric

Regarding the sanctions, Saddam was attempting to establish a middle eastern empire. Had we not intervened he may have succeeded. We had to protect our national interests. Numerous people, including Charles Duelfer have testified to this. Sanctions may have been effective for a time but Saddam had managed to largely circumvent them. Saddam knew what he had to do to get the sanctions removed. He chose not to. The sanctions were his fault and he and his henchmen bear the ultimate responsiblity for them. Any and all Iraqi deaths resulting from sanctions will have to be laid at the feet of Saddam and his henchmen. Besides, I'm not convinced the sabctions caused the harm you say they did. The leftists who bandy the numbers about can't seem to get their figures straight.

I'm really not convinced Saddam did not have WMD stockplies. If you will recall, Charles Duelfer was never able to complete the investigation into what was transferred to Syria. You can check this out at www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm I relly hope he did not have the WMD stockpiles. I'm just not that optimisitic. You can find a copy of the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq at www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml The reasons given for the authorization are: 1.)Enforce all relevant UN security council resolutions regading Iraq. These include resolution 688 calling on Iraq to end repression of its civilian population. 2.) Enforce the 1991 cease fire that Saddam was in violation of. 3.)Stop Saddam from aiding and harboring terrorists organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens. 4.) End the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. While it is true that the threat of WMD was probably the primary reason to authorize the war, this was not the only reason. It is simply the one the anti-Bush main stream media has latched onto. I think this is because it serves the anti-Bush political agenda.

CIA statement Eric copies: "Although Bagdahd focused on anti disident activities overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist groups, the regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed attempt assainate former president Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." While it may be true that Iraq did not directly participate in attacks on the United States, Iraq supported Al Qaeda with money, logistics, and sanctuary. I provide links for all of this earlier in the thread. Also you can get documentation in Richard Minter's book: Shadow War. I think its highly probable that either Iraqi money helped fund Al Qaeda terrorists attacks against America, Al Qaeda operatives trained in Iraq participated in attacks on American interests, or both of the above. So while Saddam may not have directly attacked American interests he aided and abetted those who did. If we assume Saddam did not attack western interests, we would have to assume that attacks on coalition aircraft who were there to restain Saddam and protect our interests and those of our allies don't count as attacks on western interests.

I think it is well known that the Saddam Huessein regime and the current Iranian regime did not care for one another. So I would not be surprised that he would support a group to fight against Iran.

"So Iraq was not sponsoring terrorism againsts the west..." I don't think this is true. I document this in the previous links and you can find more documentation at www.huesseinandterror.com I can understand the desire of some to want to work with MEK. They are opposed to Iran and the Iranian mullahs have threatened to "burn the roots of the Anglo-Saxon race." I think we should proceed with caution. The need to oppose Iran was how we ended up working with Saddam a long time ago. I would not want to repeat something like that.

You state that Pakistan and Sudan are not an American concern at the moment. I don't think this is true. www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1023 discusses recent American anti-terror actions in Pakistan. http://billroggio.com/archives/2004/08/the_horn.php discusses American special forces hunting for terrorists in Sudan. This contains a link to UK TElegraph article. Richard Minter touches on this in his book, as well. Suffice it to say there seem to be a number of anti-terror operations don't receive publicity.

You write the war in Iraq has not eliminated one major terrorist organization. While I think you are correct in this regard, I think it has weakened Al Qaeda and its affiliates. As I pointed out earlier, Al Zarqawi has been unable to do an attack on America because of a "lack of willing martyrs." I'm not sure if the organizations you refer to have been weakened. It seems, that while these groups don't like America their primary focus is on Israel right now. Israel is our most important ally. Even if Israel disappeared today, this would solve nothing. All it would mean is the terrorist assets deployed against Israel would be deployed elsewhere. Probably in a neighborhood near us. Israel acts as a buffer between us and the terrorists. I think Israel may be having some success against them. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism against America and the West and I'm not convinced Saddam did not have the WMD stockpiles. Charles Duelfer was never able to complete the investigation. In fact, the terrorist groups you refer to received funding from Saddam. The loss of funds from the former Iraqi regime certainly can't help them.

The Sunnis left themselves out in the cold. We turned over soverignty to the Iraqis in June 2004. The Sunnis will need to accept responsibility for their actions. If we measure policies by their effectiveness and not by their intentions, GW Bush should never have had Colin Powell in his administration. It was the decision not to remove Saddam, at the end of the first gulf war, made by Powell and Scowcroft that made an enormous contribution to the current situation. It reamins to be seen whether the policies of the Bush administrtion will work. I hope and pray they do. What we do know is the previous policies failed.

The Sunni Insurgency, as you refer to it, appears to be largely directed by the terrorists. They are mad because they have lost their terrorist haven. This has put them on the defensive. Iran is active in the support of the terrorists, so I think you would expect them to be invovled. We will have to do something about Iran. I'm not sure what our government is thinking here. Hopefully an Iraq who is allied with us can help us deal with Iran. Again, it is unknown at this time how this will work out.
I don't think a civil war will happen as long as the American military is there to provide security. I think the Bush administration believes in terms such as "democracy." It is not poetry or just meant to sound nice. The hope is that democracies will not support terrorists!! I'm not sure who the Jacobins are. Hopefully this situation will work out better. If we care about Iraqis, we should pray that this works out for them and they can have peace.

I would not vote for the al-Dawa party. I'm not an Iraqi. I have never been under the illusion that an Iraqi democracy would look like our own. This is liberty. They will choose the government they want. We manage to peacefully co-exist and trade with many Islamic countries. It is the extremists who are the problem. I hope we can peacefully co-exist with a new Iraqi government. The Bush administration has implemented some of the philosphies of so called neoconservatives. One thing they believe is that democracies do not make war with each other. I hope it works out. I suspect the only thing we will really ask of them, is not to attack us and not to support those who do!! Their country is theirs. I say give them a chance. I believe fighting in Iraq has everything to do with fighting terrorism. I find nothing silly about preventing the next 911. I think Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. I believe removing Saddam has prevented or at least delayed the next 911. The internet links and other information I provided would seem to lend credence to my theories. Having said all of this, we need to do something about our borders and we need to improve our human intellegence.

I wrote: "So far all you have given me is the standard leftist talking points." While I may have come on a little strong, there is nothing petty about it. I don't engage in pettiness. I'm not sure what Sean Hannity said. I rather like him as a commentator. But that is all he is, a commentator. I don't think the Pope, Brent Scowcroft, the State Department, or Catholic Just War Theory are paid hacks of the anti-war left. They each have a difference of opinion, in a number of areas, from the Bush administration. As for David Kay and Charles Duelfer, they are not anti-war. While it is true that the left has cherry picked what they said to make them seem anti war. Here is what David Kay actually said, "the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Huessein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMDs, the likelyhood at some point in the future of a seller and buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out to be a fully accurate estimate." Andrew Sullivan at www.andresullivan.com blogged on this and he referred to David Kay as a hawk. You can find what Charles Duelfer said in a converstion with Senator John Warner at www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15443 As an ana-lyst, he believes the world is better off without Saddam Huessein. Actually I find the leftists to be quite nasty. The accusations against President Bush that he "lied" have no basis. This is not the Bush war. There is a broad coalition of 20+ nations involved. You seem to accuse me of "Bush Worship." If you have read my posts here, you will know I am no Bush fan. He is a big government liberal. I am a conservative. Frankly his policy on illegal immigrants stinks. Expressing skepticism at the standard leftist talking points does not make me a Bush worshiper.

1.) I believe the Sunni insurgency is being supported by the terrorist groups because they want their terrorist haven back. The invasion of Iraq has put them on the defensive. Thses certainly don't seem to be Iraqi patriots. They are killing more Iraqis than anything else. 2.) Iraq, under Saddam, seems to have provided substantial support to those who did threaten us. I simply don't see how you are going to win a war agains Islamic Extremist terrorism by allowing one of the most important terror supporting regimes to remain in power. 3.) I would not vote for al-Dawa either. Who the Iraqis vote for is up to them. The thinking appears to be that a democracy will not attack us or support those who do. All we will ask is that they not attack us or support those who are trying to.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

I think it's very easy to show that the Neocons and all the supporters of Bush's war in Iraq expressed no conern for the Iraqi people during the Clinton Administration, but since you don't won't to discuss it I won't belabor the point.

You write "Long dead members of a long defunct political party are NOT who we should look to first in deciding American Foreign Policy."

Who are you talking about and what party are you referring to?

I never said the Turks were Arabs. I mentioned that the Arab street is up in arms against the United States invasion of Iraq and this extends to other non-Arabic Muslim nations like Turkey. A recent poll showed that Turkey had the highest percentage of anti-American attitudes of any country in the world. Libya has been trying to regain entry into the international community for years and it didn't have anything to do with Bush's invasion of Iraq. The two remaining countries on the "axis of evil" list are now pursuing nuclear technology and both are in the position to develop a nuclear device.

Most Iraqis don't support the insurgency because the insurgency originates in the so-called Sunni triangle and the attacks are typically against Shi'a and Kurds. This doesn't translate into pro-American support, but actually reflects Brent Scowcroft's more realistic assessment of an "incipient civil war." Before the Coalition Provisional Authority was dissolved they conducted an extensive poll in Iraq and found that Muktada al-Sadr was the second most respected man in Iraq behind Sistani, and that 90% of Iraqis consider the U.S. presence an occupation. Muktada al-Sadr's respect comes entirely from his defiance of the United States military. I don't think you can say the Iraqis are pro-American when the second most respected man in Iraq is respected because his militia is responsible for killing U.S. soldiers. Most polls show that the Iraqis want U.S. forces out of Iraq and as the Iraqi government assumes greater sovereignty there will be greater pressure for us to vacate Iraq. These are not signs of a pro-American sentiment in Iraq.

You write "The Bush Doctrine advocates pre-emptive action and Mideast Democratization, and has since 9/11. Well before the War in Iraq."

The case for pre-emptive action was based on Iraq's (fictious) WMD stockpiles. Why did you bring up an issue related to WMDs if you don't think the issue is interesting to talk about?

Mideast democratization is an incredibly ridiculous idea. As I pointed out in my previous posts fighting for "democracy" in other countries amounts to telling our soldiers to die for political parties no one in America would even vote for. If you can give me a good reason to think why I should tell my fellow Americans to die for political parties I wouldn't even vote for, by all means let's hear it.

You write "From 1979 to 9/11, a policy of maintaining the Status Quo turned out to be one that was nothing short of masochistic."

I was not in favor of the "status quo" because it was obviously not in our interests and provoked the terrorist attack on 9/11. The "status quo" involved foreign policy blunders like the first Gulf War under Bush I. Why should the United States concern itself with a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait and Iraq's gripe over Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil wells? Originally it had the promise of being an "Arab" issue with Osama and his holy warriors recently back from Afghanistan and ready to fight against Iraq. Instead of a protracted war between Osama and Saddam Hussein we engage in a conflict that earns us the enmity of both men. Saddam Hussein hates us because we led the forces to oust him from Kuwait and Osama hates us because we've descretated the Holy Land with infidels. So both 9/11 and the current war in Iraq are the Arab serpents returning the sting.

However, President Bush hasn't done anything to discourage the Arab street from wishing to wage a jihad against us nor has he a done a thing to stop other nations from pursuing nuclear technology that could eventually threaten us.

Recent events have shown that intervention in the Arab world has not done us any favors and has not made America more secure. So an American first foreign policy would be neutral and non-interventionist and consequently the best and most prudent policy for America to follow.

Okay where to begin here.

First, I was referring to Russel Kirk and the Whig party.

Secondly, what is your source for saying that the Arab street is up in arms against the United States? The democratic reform that has swept the region since the Iraqi Elections would seem to be largley contradictory to this. I feel that the Arab population is not necessarily pro-American or Anti-American at this point. Instead, opinions are ragingly different. However there is little question to me that the pro-American viewpoint on the Arab street is much stronger now than it was before Iraq.

www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

This is just one Iraqi blog. Next to it you can find a long list of links that more or less constitute the Arab/Iraqi Blogosphere. I recommend you check out the opinions on there. Neither opinion seems to prevail over the other, there are many viewpoints on both sides.

Third point. Of course Iraqis wants US troops out of Iraq. Americans want US troops out of Iraq. This is not indicitave that the prevailing Iraqi opinion is anti-American. It is widely agreed that among the Kurdish and Shiite populations of Iraq pro-US sentiment is the prevailing viewpoint. Among the Sunnis however there is much angry anti-US sentiment. The Iraqi people are not one single ideological monolith, they are many different people with many different views.

Why should the US concern itself with a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Because Kuwait is a Middle East ally of the United States. It's generally a bad idea to allow your enemies to invade and annex your allies. This statement belays a very strange and seemingly self-destructive view of foreign policy.

Is Middle East democratization such a ridiculous idea? To prove that you will need to find a way to overturn the massive progess that has been made in that region towards democratic reform since 9/11.

George W. Bush has presided over the biggest shift towards Democratic Reform in the history of the Middle East. Afghanistan has an elected government, Iraq has an elected government, Syria is out of Lebanon, we have seen moves towards democratic reform in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, there has been a democratic shift in Palestine, and the Iraq war prompted Lybia to give up it's secret WMD program. By all credible accounts the pro-US faction of the Arab Street has grown immensely.

When it boils down to it I think you are basing your argument here off a very false assertion: That the popular Arab viewpoint has become more Anti-American. There is simply no evidence to suggest this. In fact most every foreign policy/middle east thinker agrees that the Arab street has, if anything, become much more Pro-American.

So move past reactionism. What is your viewpoint? Outline what your doctrine of Mideast foreign policy would be.

PS: A quick note. It would seem to me that the paleoconservative, or at least your, viewpoint on foreign policy is this:

We should do away with foreign policy.

Thoughts?