As I said this effort could turn out to be a boon for all, as I hope it will be, but only time will reveal whether that's the case. But I'm still worried about the awful state of our Intelligence, and said intelligence which ostensibly led to this invasion.
Yes, but so are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc., etc., and maybe even Saudia Arabia. We didn't go there. Why? Because Saddam was easy pickings,
So in other words, because we don't do "A" means we shouldn't do "B"?
As for him bein "easy pickings" you say that like it's a bad thing.
Saudia Arabia
Remember what OBL and his ilk are saying that we are at war with Islam and what to destory it. Invading Saudia Arabia would have allowed him to say YOU SEE YOU SEE(!), and 10' of millions would of flocked to fight alongside him.
Iran,
We don't really have to invade Iran, we just need to offer support to the vast majority of Iranians who hate the Mullahs in Tehran.
Pakistan,
The Musharraf is working closly with America on the "War on Terror". He's also doing what he can to root out the radicals.
"Yes, but so are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc., etc., and maybe even Saudia Arabia. We didn't go there. Why?"
Huh?!?!? We are already *in* Pakistan and saudi Arabia, and both Pakistani and SA govts are on our side fighting the terrorists in their midst. Sure, they have jihadist supporters even in the govts, but they have gotten the message - the pakistani army has been fighting al qaeda and the saudis last week killed off the al quaeda leader in SA.
Can we trust them fully? We did worse in the past - in World War II we allied with that SOB Stalin in the USSR.
As for Iran .... who said the war on Terror was *over*???
"we were told that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat."
Which they were.
" They were no more grave and/or gathering than Iran."
Dont you remember the 'axis of evil' where Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea back in 2002? Bush pegged it exactly right. Those were the 3 biggest threats to us.
#4 is Syria, #5 was Libya, which, thanks to the war in Iraq, saw the writing on the wall and decided to get out of the terrorist and WMD-sponsoing business.
Calling saddam 'easy pickings' is a bit harsh on our soldiers who lost their lives there. The real reason is that of the three only Iraq posed a problem that required a military solution - regime change and encorcement of already ignored ceasefire and UN resolutions. We were *already* in a state of war with Saddam, with our no-fly zones and sanctions.
RPNK govt should be overthrown but our strategy is not to start a war with them, but destroy their exporting activities and pursuit of nukes, diplomatically and otherwise. We have already intercepted missile shipments and the diplomacy is constrained by South Korea's desire for engagement. A military solution initiated by US is unthinkable at this time.
Michael Ledeen has said that Iran doesnt need a 'military' solution. We just need to support democracy in Iran. Liberating Iraq is the best way to do that, as Iran will soon have a border with *2* newly democratic emerging states. The economy in Iraq is booming, and thousands of shiite pilgrims see what those changes are creating each day. Iran will require political and other pressure and support of internal forces that reform or overthrow the mullah dictatorship. Rather than helping, direct military attack on Iran could hurt this process. In any case, we may well attack Iran's nuke plants in the future if they dont back down.
"As I said this effort could turn out to be a boon for all,"
You dont need a caveat here. It already *is* a boon for all.
We have gone about 2/3rds of the way to victory in Iraq and have *already* reshaped the Arab world for the better. Removing Saddam just by itself is a huge advance for liberty.
"But I'm still worried about the awful state of our Intelligence"
Any nation that makes a hit out of a Michael Moore movie has a serious Intelligence problem.
That's a little like complaining that we didn't invade all of Germany at once in WWII, but only a few beaches in France.
Cordially,
You forgot UN resolution 1441 which gave us legal justification. Hussein violated practically every directive openly and contemptuously flouting the agreements. If international agreements are to have any teeth, they must be enforced. Hussein should have deposed in the first gulf war. I'm not arguing that the others deserve to be overthrown, especially Iran, but legally we couldn't do it. Iran may fall from within shortly something that would not have happened with Iraq. In my mind Iraq was always a grave threat as long as Hussein and his sons had power.