Ahhhh...Bush's actions in Iraq are much more complicated than the several dissenting "strategic" thinkers of dissent are opineing in this forum.
Bush engaged both Afgahnistan and Iraq out of a change in overall foreign policy against terrorism "and" the tyrannical regimes and despot's that support them...remember the whole "National veils" will not protect the terrorist speech.
Previous to Bush's proactive, offensive, policy...the U.S. had a policy of "measured response"...i.e. a terrorist blows up the U.S.S. Cole, that idiot Clinton lobs a couple of cruise missiles to make things even...obviously 9/11 proved "measured response" didn't work.
While it is true that there is no linkage of Iraq to 9/11, what is true is Iraq habored terrorists (AL Ansar in North comes to mind), Zarqawi running from Afghanistan also...it's also true that Saddam's cash was being used to pay suicide bombers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere...and while Iraq has yet to reveal any WMD's, it did have the technical resources to build them...2+2= new foriegn policy against dangerous regimes= invade Iraq. How many U.S. Embassy's have been bombed in recent years? How many attacks on U.S. soil> ehhhhhhhhhh?
So how about you great ME strategic thinkers give Bush a break...alright?
Wasn't that Kurdish-controlled territory?