'Tis the season indeed, John. No doubt Kerry the patriot-turned-gold-digger will hammer GW on Iraq. I have believed the US and its allies were in the right to invade Iraq. VDH has a great piece on NRO that puts it in a proper moral and historical context. Here's a snippet. Click the link above to read the entire article in all its majesty.
If the United States went to war with Iraq only because of the threat of WMDs; if the mass murdering of Saddam Hussein was found on examination to be highly exaggerated; if we had some secret plan for stealing the oil of Iraq, if Saddam Hussein posed no future threat to the United States or its allies; if the war resulted in a worse future for Iraq, the United States, and the surrounding Middle East; and if the administration deliberately constructed false intelligence evidence to advance such an unnecessary war that resulted in misery rather than hope, then an apology is needed now. But so far, that has simply not been the case.The real outrage is instead that at a time of one of most important developments of the last half-century, when this country is waging a war to the death against radical Islamic fascism and attempting to bring democracy to an autocratic wasteland, we hear instead daily about some mythical rogue CIA agent who supposedly faked evidence, Martha Stewart's courtroom shoes, Michael Jackson's purported perversion, and Scott Peterson's most recent alibi. Amazing.
The President acted prudently on the best information he had, staking his presidency on the outcome. He is a man of courage and integrity.
There is absolutely no doubt that SH repeatedly, violated the terms of the ceasefire in a material way. These terms required him to demonstrate that Iraq no longer had WMD. Of course, he did not do that.
We were certainly not at peace with Iraq prior to the resumption of hostilities. If there had been a genuine peace, a preemptive strike would have been unjustified.
The war and the subsequent peace have been a phenomenal success by any objective standard. It remains to be seen if the Iraqis can build for themselves a free and prosperous nation. It is certainly worthwhile to give them every opportunity to succeed - since, if they do, it will transform the Middle East. The jury is still out - on the Iraqis of course. Our nation has done the right thing.
Alas, if we are waging a war to the death against radical Islamic fascism, we attacked the wrong country. Iraq was a secular government.
Creating a democratic example in the region is a great idea - we should have kept our forces in Afghanistan, and with the billions we used in Iraq, we could have gotten rid of the warlords that control the countryside. Developed her infrastructure, irrigation, factories, and a shiny new John Deere to every farmer.
Instead, we only have 10,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, President Karzai rules only Kabul, and the farmers grow opium, and are reluctant to give us clues on the whereabouts of their protectors, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.
Tell me why you think spreading our troops thin by invading a secular country with no responsiblity to attacks on our soil, was a worthwhile diversion at this particular time? Why couldn't saving Iraq's people not have waited just a little longer?