[Alberta's Child]

Why does he suppose we have not had another major attack here in the States? Because we took the war to them, just exactly as President Bush said we were going to do. We'll fight them on the streets of Baghdad so that we aren't fighting them HERE.

This is a disingenuous argument, and completely unsupported by any facts. Having U.S. military personnel in a foreign country does nothing to prevent terrorist attacks here in the U.S. The lack of any major attack here in the U.S. since 9/11 -- if there is even anything meaningful in a 5+ year period with no major terrorist attacks in the U.S. -- is primarily attributable to domestic anti-terror measures that were put in place after 9/11.

Militants from Syria and Iran are streaming into Iraq and that's a pity, but it's especially a pity for them as they would much rather stream into the United States.

See my point above. Nothing prevents "militants" from Syria and Iran from streaming into the U.S. today -- especially if they learn a few Spanish phrases and stream into this country across our southern border.

Is it a "mistake" because four years after the fall of the Ba'ath regime, we don't have a peaceful Iraq?

Well, yes -- sort of. For most of the people you've cited, they consider it a mistake because they were delusional enough to believe in 2002 that Iraq was even capable of being a peaceful, stable country. In this sense, they were completely misled by a number of officials in and out of government who predicted that establishing peace and stability in Iraq would be easy.

Did anyone anywhere think we were going to do that in four years? Did anyone think that the various powers that be (or would be) in the Middle East would take it lying down?

Yes. See my point above.

We are not in Iraq to avenge ourselves for September 11th, or to find Osama bin Laden, or to save the world from WMD, and we never were. We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East.

This kind of utopian, delusional, Wilsonian nonsense was utterly repudiated in 1917-18.

[Vinomori]

You! You have said it just right. Thank you.

[Wormwood]

This kind of utopian, delusional, Wilsonian nonsense was utterly repudiated in 1917-18.

Agreed, but Woodrow Wilson had the misfortune of not being an 'aw shucks', plain-speakin' feller from Texas who speaks to Jesus and can look into the souls of men.

Sadly, no Wilson-Bots ever materialized willing to ignore the follies of "the Schoolmaster".

[A_perfect_lady]

If attempting to help bring the Muslim world into the 21st century is delusional and utopian, what do YOU think we should do?

[Dr. Frank fan]

In this sense, they were completely misled by a number of officials in and out of government who predicted that establishing peace and stability in Iraq would be easy.

What number is "a number of"? Like, 2?

I never thought it would be "easy" and no one in government ever gave me that impression.

[We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East.] This kind of utopian, delusional, Wilsonian nonsense was utterly repudiated in 1917-18.

You mean, in 1917-18, some people said "we are going to begin changing the Middle East", and it didn't happen, and the way it didn't happen (i.e. some sort of metaphysical laws prevented it) utterly repudiated the very notion of changing the Middle East?

You do get points for using the adjective "Wilsonian", though. Anyone who uses the adjective "Wilsonian" automatically gets an advantage in the argument, or so I understand.

[ChessExpert]

We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East.

"This kind of utopian, delusional, Wilsonian nonsense was utterly repudiated in 1917-18."

We have changed things with every war we have won. Perhaps change was not always for the better, but we have changed things. I think we changed things for the better in WWII with regards to Germany and Japan. We changed things for the better in Korea. We almost changed things for the better in Vietnam. We changed things for the better in the Soviet Union. The idea that we can change things for the better is not delusional.

I do think that the situation has evolved in Iraq and our goals have changed. I think that should not be surprising, and is common in history. Few wars and their aftermaths go according to the play-book of one side. For starters, there are at least two sides and they have conflicting goals. For another thing, no one has perfect knowledge - though many seem to claim it.