Where to start.....
The first Gulf War was wrong. It was interventionist foreign policy which led among other things to the second gulf war, as these things always have a way of doing.
Enforcing the "terms of peace" was wrong. Breaking an agreement is NOT fraud and aggression. Breach of contract is just that -- it takes far more to make it fraud and is totally different than aggression. Moreover, breaking an agreement that never should have been made is not a sufficient reason to go to war. Our military deserves better than to misuse their irreplaceable services in such a reckless fashion.
You never answered my question: do you support the ideas of a non-interventionist foreign policy?
Since you hold that it’s okay to break contracts, I do not believe that we have the same definition of “non-interventionist.”
I’m not a lawyer, just someone who believes that promises and agreements should be kept. Contracts may be amended by mutual agreement, they can be thrown out by courts or higher authorities, but they can’t legitimately be broken by one side.
The refusal or inability to restrain Saddam within the peace terms was seen as weakness. It endangered us all by supporting the position held by bin Laden in his communications that the US would cave to terrorism.