1) Created the conditions for a Civil War in Iraq.
2) Created the conditions for increased terrorist presence in Iraq (OK, this one is good to the extent that they're not in Nebraska, but it's bad to the extent that they joined the Jihad to fight us).
3) Created a favorable regional situation for a newly nuclear Iran to dominate its neighborhood uncontested.
I don't think any minor accomplishments can make up for these enormous blunders, especially the third one. We have put ourselves in the position over there of being the only thing preventing total chaos.
And our positive accomplishments?
Saddam is no longer sending large checks to suicide bombers' families.
And the last Iraq-backed suicide bombing in the U.S. was when? Or was Saddam behind 9/11?
For a savings of a trillion dollars and 2500 American lives, plus the avoidance of a crushing GOP defeat at the polls this year (and in future years), we could have been the ones making that deal under the table with Saddam.
so you say that the fearsome army that cut tail and ran before the American onslaught in '03 was a credible deterrent to Iran? The same Iraq that had been deprived of weapons and spare parts for 12 years? They couldn't fight Iran without poison gas 20 years ago. Did you believe they could now (prior to 3/03)? How long would it have been before the Shi'ite militias of South Iraq would have been armed by Iran and in revolt against Sadaam? Then what do you do, rehabilitate Sadaam (it seems that is what he was expecting even as U.S. forces closed in on Baghdad). Don't you think we'd be facing a more concentrated force of al Quada et al in Afghanistan if they weren't being bled in Iraq?You have to face them somewhere,in my opinion, and the old Clintonian approach that you appear to favor by default, ended with a bang on 9/11.
I don't understand why someone as big and important and knowledgeable as you doesn't run for office yourself. You certainly have all the answers. However, if as you contend, what happens in Iraq has no bearing on the US what difference does it make whether we've "set up conditions" for a civil war. They'll only be killing themselves and probably in far fewer numbers than Saddam was killing them (heck, they're probably not as important as us anyway).
I think Saddam was a destablizing force in the Middle East which made him a destabilizing force in the world. The potential danger (we have found WMD's...do a search the evidence is there, he was actively seeking nukes, and meeting & making deals with Al Qaeda...jveritas has provided the evidence from Saddam's own papers as did the Clinton administration and the 911 commission)...that "gathering threat" made leaving someone as defiant as him in power a very bad idea. Even the Bremmer report said Iraq was growing more dangerous by the day. What's the point of sanctions, of a ceasefire based on Saddam meeting certain conditions if he never has to live up to them?
As we deal with other nations (Syria, Iran, NK) how could we (by "we" I mean the UN/world body since that's how these issues are dealt with at this point in history) possibly convince other rogue nations we expect them to live up to their agreement(s) if we aren't willing to enforce consequences for noncompliance...or worse, make backdoor deals with the very nations who are supposedly responsible for determining compliance? Might as well try to pound a nail with a wet noodle.
I don't think it's a valid arguement to say this allows Iran to become a dominate nuclear power since we know they were actively pursuing nukes while Saddam was still in power (as Saddam was also). Frankly, I highly doubt either would consider the other the first target. I also think our presence in Iraq has had a positive influence on the situations in Libya and Lebanon (the recent assiination not withstanding).
It's a little condescending to suggest I somehow think Iraq was involved in 911 since I said nothing like that (though were proof discovered tomorrow I certainly wouldn't be surprised). However, one investigative journalist (Laurie Mulroy, I believe) has done an incredibly thorough job of documenting Saddam's involvement in the OKC bombing. And then there's the indictment of Al Qaeda in federal court by the Clinton Administration, Saddam was named (and documentation given) as an accomplice. As far as I know we usually consider accomplices to be engaged in criminal behavior along with the indictee, even if that accomplice is a swell guy who passes out flowers to little old ladies. I would think someone as smart as you could make the connection between Saddam paying terrorists and it's impact on the rest of the world (that includes the US). It's an incentive to create more terror (do you honestly believe he WOULDN'T give a check to a suicide bomber's family if he suicided himself in the United States)?
But as I said, and I truly mean this, if you have all the right answers then you really should run for office. How could you not when you could save us from ourselves? Armchair quarterback is the easiest position in the game. You risk nothing and actually think you have greater insight and perspective than those actively engaged in playing the game and taking the hits.
Cindie
More so then a Governmental campaign to recruit terrorist to attack the US?
You really need to get the facts before you post.