[jpl]

Once Iraq has descended into chaos and we give up and leave, the religious nuts that end up ruling it will make Saddam look like a nice guy. Those are the people behind the two WTC attacks and this war will strengthen them in two primary ways: they will have more people joining them, and they will have a base of operations to work out of that may include a large part of the Middle East and South Asia (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc).

After we kill/arrest Saddam and his family and top henchmen, we're not just going to "give up and leave". While no concrete plans for administration have been made just yet, I believe that a U.S. or NATO general will end up temporarily administering the government (like MacArthur in Japan), with a popularly elected government to come within the next 2-5 years. Heck, they may even decide to split up Iraq into two or three separate sovereign countries. But we're going to have a military presence there for a while. And once we are in control, Iraq will be permantly removed as a possible base of any terrorist operations. And the Islamofascists won't be strengthened by our victory any more than Al-Queda has been strengthened by our operations in Afghanistan.

[palmer]

After we kill/arrest Saddam and his family and top henchmen, we're not just going to "give up and leave". While no concrete plans for administration have been made just yet, I believe that a U.S. or NATO general will end up temporarily administering the government (like MacArthur in Japan), with a popularly elected government to come within the next 2-5 years. Heck, they may even decide to split up Iraq into two or three separate sovereign countries.

I would love to see a discussion of those possibilities and the risks involved in them. That's what disturbs me most about the rush to war, we aren't talking about what long term benefit it will have versus the long term risks.