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
If we're just going to take out anyone we consider a "threat" who can be taken out, I can't support that policy.
And by the way, nice rhetorical trick, telling anyone who disagrees with your failed policy that they're just an armchair quarterback. I don't have to run for office, thank goodness. I elect other people to office so that I am free to pursue other things.
Speaking of which, I used to feel like the House and Senate had my back, so I was safe to do as I pleased. But now Dubya has pissed away the Congress thanks to his lack of foresight in Iraq and his unwillingness, right through the election, to adapt to the situation there.