Today begins year four of the Iraq War. Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse came before year five of the Civil War. Armistice Day came during year two of America's involvement in World War I. VE Day and VJ Day came during America's fourth year in World War II. The United States fought these past wars with a steady, concrete objective: defeat the enemy. Victory was in our power. America fights this war with a shifting, currently abstract objective: establish democracy. Victory, if based on the nation-building principle, is out of our hands. This is why it is not hard to envision a year five, six, and seven of the Iraq War. This is also why there never should have been a year one.

Have to wait at least until 08' when the stubborn Texan has to leave office for this fiasco to end. Until then, more body bags and lost limbs, more $$$ and little hope that the Iraqi neanderthals will be able to govern themselves or put a halt to a long civil war.

What ever happened to simply making sure Saddam was not stockpiling WMD's?

Simply making sure Saddam wasn't piling WMD. Just like we made sure Iran didn't get nuclear program components. Ditto with North Korea.

War is the last resort in international conflict, but given the consensus at the time of the threat posed by WMDs still unaccounted for, and given Hussein's longstanding violation of the terms of peace settled on in 1991 at the end of Gulf War I, the war was not per se necessary, but certainly a legitimate option to exercise.

I also think Dan's comparison is a bit unfair. The war we are fighting is one to establish a post-war government. The war in Iraq was unlike WWI and WWII where years of fighting had worn down civilian resolve and heavy casualties on the enemy's side also weakened the pool of insurgents available for an ongoing guerrilla war.

With Iraq, that was absent with a surgical war aimed at dismantling Saddam's hold on power but maintaining the apparatus of govt. and infrastructure at large.

Iraq was the quickest war the world has seen since the Six Days War. It's the longest post-war military struggle excluding Israel's years-long struggle with Palestinian extremist terrorism

Ken: Which is it? Was war the "last resort" here? Or was it an unnecessary but "legitimate option"? I'm confused as to your position.

Post 9/11, the country was pretty pizzed off and Bush saw a window of opportunity. With the information that he supposedly had that Saddam was stockpiling WMD’s and that he may have developed a low level nuke, it wasn’t a stretch to convince the country or the world that we should go in. Especially since Saddam had thumbed his nose at previous inspections by refusing to allow thorough investigations.

So the advertised reasons for us to use military force against Iraq seemed to be good ones, although I’ve said it before that I did not agree with this action initially, I had to give my government the benefit of the doubt as I expected that there were people a lot smarter and better informed that me who helped to make this decision. I think most people rationalize it this way. And most people believed Saddam to be an overall threat to world peace.

Problem has become that our purpose to be there has morphed from the investigation and confirmation of no WMD’s to fighting terror abroad to nation building in the guise of instituting Democracy. And I don’t agree with this. Way I look at it, we accomplished our primary mission and we should have been out within the year. Year and a half, tops. Now we’re on to four with no end in site.

I think if Bush had said that we were going to launch a military action against Iraq to secure their natural resources, it would have been slightly more palatable than continuing our presence there to make Iraq safe for democracy. His support ratings would be better if people knew that what we were in there for was something tangible that would help us. But to say that we’re still spilling blood and spending tons of cash to organize and democratize the Iraqi people???

If Bush wants to fight a war, he should be looking to fight the border war we have brewing with Mexico. Where are Wilson and Pershing when we need them?

This is becoming the conventional wisdom, no? Original Mission, just and good and right, but based on faulty intell. New Mission, unrealistic/imprudent.

The problem with this view is that, regardless of the faulty intel, we would have the same post-war situation we do now with culture and religion and budding civil war and a likely power vacuum to be filled by (at best) another Saddam or (at worst) an Islamic terorist-type. This foreknowledge makes the original mission just as bad as the new mission, and almost as imprudent/utopian as taking over Iran right now, though Iran is much more a threat than prewar Saddam was.

Scully (and Dan), what do think is the best way to handle the Iranian situation? I don't ask this by way of provocation or to antagonize, I'm really just interested in your opinions.

Homer, your question--at least the part that involves me--probably deserves a main post rather than a comment response. I'll try to accomodate within the week.

The Iraq War is a waiting game. We will have won when a critical mass of Sunnis realize that the Insurgency isn't going anywhere, and hop on board with the rest of Iraq.

The United States military has maintained total theatre superiority throughout the Iraq War, and the casualties we have suffered, operationall speaking, are nothing but a flea on the back of a dog.

The voices of United States military commanders in Iraq are a unified chorus: We are winning and winning decisively.

If Al Qaeda and it's supporters are correct, and America is a paper tiger, incapable of suffering a bloody nose and continuing to fight, we will pull out, and lose.

Otherwise we are not now and ever have been in any danger of attaining anything short of total victory in Iraq.

P.S: That means total victory for the strategic interests of the United States of America, not total victory fo democracy-exporters. That struggle is a truly unwinnable won.