Replies

"Nothing much, just 3,000 servicemen dead. 10,000? 20,000? I don't know - how many badly wounded. 100,000s Iraqis dead."

Wars are costly in lives and money and should consequently be undertaken only if no other option remains. But if the conclusion is no other option remains, the casualties, which are inevitable, become secondary factors.

The loss of life of any one American soldier is regrettable and a tragedy. But we lost far more than 3,000 servicemen in WW2 and yet this did not deter us. The reason was the consequences of losing that war were more dire than the regrettable loss of our troops. I believe the same situation applies here. There were many reasons for attacking Saddam and taken together, justified our invasion. The loss of 3,000 servicemen over several years is regrettable especially in light of the REASON so many have died recently - trying to conduct a social experiment in a fractionated sheikdom that was doomed to failure, while IGNORING the continued menace of Iran and Syria the destruction of which should have been our next objectives.

As for the number of enemy dead, civilian and military, unfortunate, but irrelevant. Our interests and our lives must come first or we have no business operating as a nation or maintaining a military establishment.

"Loss of US prestige abroad. "

We didn't loose prestige abroad because we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. We are losing prestige abroad because we continue to fight a defensive war and allow third and fourth rate military powers like Iran and Syria to kill Americans in Iraq by proxy with total impunity.

"Loss of the House. 2008 presidential chances badly damaged."

The Congress was lost for many reasons. I believe a good part of it had to do with alienating the Republican base and independent Americans with an insane border policy and amnesty programs for illegal invaders. The mismanagement of the Iraqi war was also a factor, but I believe it was the MISMANAGEMENT of the war, rather than the war ITSELF which was the cause. If indeed the American public was unable to connect the dots as to why we were there in the first place, either the average American is infinitesimally ignorant, or the administration infinitesimally inept at communicating, or perhaps both.

"Iraq apparently still a long way from the stated goal of being a friendly power able to sustain itself. "
Iraq will never be able to sustain itself with hostile neighbors like Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia on its borders stirring the pot. But in the final analysis, the state of affairs in Iraq should only concern us from the perspective of using it as a springboard to launch destructive attacks on our other enemies to either side of it - Iran and Syria.

"Syria and Iran gained a huge amount of face and power in the Arab world by their success in fighting a proxy war in Iraq."

EXACTLY. And this is why it is essential we do NOT pull out of the Middle East militarily until we destroy the current regimes in Iran and Syria as we did the regime in Iraq. Once THAT is accomplished, we should simply pull out.

Leave them to their fates and let them stew in their primitive religion and cultural backwardness. We should only concern ourselves there militarily again if another lesson needs to be delivered.