Replies

"So the question is if:

1) we care more about the freedom of the Iraqi people than they do (something we could only have known in hindsight), and
2)we are not willing to wage total war until all opposition is removed,
than how can we possibly win there? "

Good Questions. As other's have suggested it's a bigger effort thats part of the Global War on Terror than just installing a democracy in Iraq.

Our options to entering the war were to:

Ignore 9/11 like Clinton did the terrorist attacks on his watch. But that just leads to more attacks and encourages the terrorists.
Tit for Tat - but that also encourages them, since they believe they can win wars of attrition.
Or go after the sources of support. Whether or not you can link Saddam to 9/11 he was clearly the most vocal state leader in support of terrorism.

Once the decision is made to go after him. The question is how.

We could assasinate Saddam. Which is against US law, meaning an open debate about the law which would likely fail. And which might not make the situation any better, since Saddam's sons would simply step up.
We could go to war. We tried to get the UN involved but Saddam bribed and blackmailed the French and Germans with oil vouchers.
We could go to war and brutally bomb the heck out of them with no regard for human life and with the result of truly massive Iraqi casualties and an inflamed Muslim world.
So we chose the greater right went to war with a consortium of countries outside of the UN fighting only those people who chose to fight against us.

Having won the war, our options were:

Leave immediately, even though Saddam's men still had most of the fire power and Saddam was not captured.
Leave after capturing Saddam, even though Saddam's men stil have most of the fire power and would probably resume control.
Stay and help them form a democracy.
The reason to stay and help them form a democracy is not just for the Iraqi people. Bush has repeatedly stated that a democracy in Iraq will serve as an example to other Muslim countries and put pressure on them to adopt democratic principles and freedoms.
I can't stress how important that is. Muslims are initiating wars on practically every border. Do a google on "the age of Muslim wars" and read the article that pops up. The problem that led to 9/11 is much larger than Osama or Saddam or both put together. The problem is militant Islam.
So how do you defeat militant Islam?
Well you can play Whack-a-mole with every Islamic terrorist organization that pops his head up. And we've done that.
You can arm all of the non-muslim people arround Muslim borders. I don't know how much we've done that but we probably ought to do more arming and training.
You can declare war on all Islam and have massive massive casualties.
You can declare war on one state at a time and only knock out the ones that are clearly supporting a militant view. We've have done that. We've taken down two and rattled sabers at Syria.
You can find a way to eat away at the Militant Islamic virus. And that way is by installing a democracy in the middle of Muslim territory. We had Israel which has prospered more than any muslim country. But since Muslims hate Jews as part of their religion, Israel's success just fosters hatred instead of being an example.
If Iraq is successful it puts pressure on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to become more democratic. Democracy will lead to freedom of religion and freedom of religion will destroy Islam. And that is why they Muslim's are fighting so hard against a successful democracy in Iraq.
But if we hope to avoid more 9/11's and bring terrorism to an end, this is the way we must go.