Ivo,

In many ways, I like where you are going with this, and I agree that the Bush administration's obsession with the Iraqi government, and with achieving a victory that succeeds in establishing that government's control over the whole country, is blinkered and wrongheaded.

But I'm not sure your analysis supports your conclusion that "this civil war will only end when one side defeats the other decisively."

For some time now, I have conceptualized the conflict by dividing the combatants into two groups: those with limited territorial aims, and those with maximal territorial aims. The former seek only to win outright governing control of some particular region of Iraq, and their concern with other regions is only to defeat forces there that are attacking them and are opposed to their own limited territorial aims.

The latter maximalist groups seek a pan-Iraqi or nationalist resolution of the conflict. They seek to win governing control of all of Iraq, on behalf of some group or vision.

Among the major players in the conflict, my understanding is that they tend to line up this way:

Limited Territorial Aims:

1. The Kurdish Parties: KDP, PUK

2. Sciri

Maximalist Territorial Aims:

1. The Sadrists

2. The Insurgency

... a. Sunni Islamist groups

... b. Sunni Arab Baathists?

Undefined Territorial Aims

1. National liberationist Sunni insurgents?

I put a question mark next to the Baathists and National Liberationists. Not enough is known about the different factions that comprise the Sunni insurgency. Or at least I don't know enough about them. I know that there are Sunni Islamist groups in the insurgency that want to establish a Sunni Islamic state in all of Iraq. But what do the others want? My assumption is that at least some of the Baathists are Saddaamists want to reestablish a Saddam-like government over all of Iraq in which they have the dominant power share - in other words to restore their pre-invasion condition. But I don't know. And I'm guessing that there are many other insurgents - called here "National Liberationists" - who want to kick the foreign occupiers out of Iraq, but simply have no clear vision of what is supposed to happen next.

I would make the following observations about the conflict, based on this way of conceptualizing it:

1. It is impossible for those with maximalist, pan-Iraqi aims to achieve their desired outcome without all of the other major players failing to achieve their own aims.

2. The aims of the maximalists do not seem realistic. With or without a US presence in Iraq, it seems unlikely that any of the maximalists can achieve their aims, or at least achieve them without many years of fighting and substantial outside support.

3. Some of the groups have aims that are not mutually incompatible vis-a-vis other groups. Sciri and the Kurds are not in conflict because the territories they wish to control don't overlap. A resolution in which these groups achieve their aims is more realistic than a maximalist resolution.

4. Groups with limited territorial aims can nevertheless be in conflict with other groups, if those other groups have territorial aims which overlap with those of the first group. Thus the Kurds have a conflict with the Sunni Arabs in the insurgency, because whatever might be the ultimate aims of the insurgents, we can see that they at least include control of some northern cities like Kirkuk and Tal Afar, and these appear to be places the Kurds seek to control as well.

5. The groups with maximal territorial aims are the ones responsible for most but not all of the violence in Iraq.

6. Liberationists will only stop fighting when the US is out of Iraq.

Based on this analysis, my feeling is that the following components are part of the best route to a resolution of the Iraqi conflict:

A. Ending Iraqi conflict should be based on somehow getting the Sunni Arab insurgents to recognize that their maximalist aims will never be achieved, and that they will never again occupy the same lofty position they held under Saddaam. They must come to accept more limited territorial aims. Perhaps more limited aims can be organized under the existing constitutional framework which allows for the creation of autonomous regions. But perhaps it will require an entirely new framework.

B. Ending the conflict requires getting US troops out of Iraq.

C. With the US gone, Sciri and the Shiites they represent will never be secure in southern Iraq unless we and they work with Iran to provide for their security after the US occupation ends.

This analysis doesn't make the problem easy, since there are heavily contested areas that might still be contested even if the insurgents had more limited aims. But perhaps it at least makes the problem easier.

An interesting analysis. Could you flesh it out a little further by taking into account the various groups aims regarding control of in the ground oil?

It appears to be exactly as you describe it: a tribal, sectarian, internecine, ethnic, geopolitical, vengeful, gleeful, triumphal bloodletting. Chaos.

Furthermore, the chaos was predictable, and predicted by many, long before we invaded a sovereign country to preempt something that wasn't about to happen.

But I like your proposed solution. All we have to do is provide security, clean water, electricity, help the government support the people, maybe with jobs, education, health care, law enforcement, justice.

If that's all we have to do, let's get hopping.

"I think you missed the whole idea behind the Iraq invasion."

I wish you would elaborate on what the whole idea was. By elaborate, I mean give us more than just "This is about transforming the Middle East."

I don't disagree with you that that is what the invasion of Iraq was about (though not how it was sold to the American people). What I want to know is, how is this supposed to work?

What steps do we need to take to transform the Middle East in ways that will be favorable to the interests of America? How should we deal with opposition from Iraqi interests and the interests of Iraq's neighbors and those who identify with the Iraqi people, culture and religion? What are the possible ways in which these steps might provoke pushback, from what sources, and how should we handle them?

Or should we just put one foot in front of the other, until we find out where it takes us?

I understand very well the ideas behind the Iraq invasion. I understand the grand transformative plans that were part of the motivation for the war. I read all the articles and heard the speeches about the "democratic tsunami", the "strategic pivot" and all the other crackpot Jacobin schemes for remaking the Middle Eastern and broader Islamic worlds to our specifications. But I didn't support the war, and I didn't support those revolutionaries and their madcap schemes. I still don't

We now have a total mess on Iraq. It is a mess that threatens to spread its destructive influence beyond Iraq, and is very dangerous to the health of the world and its people. I can understand that this bloody mess looks like a promising and exciting development to you, but I just see it as a wave of murderous chaos that is likely to suck the whole world into it's bloody wake. I'm not interested in killing tens of millions of the world's people just so that their survivors might turn out to good little liberal democrats.

I want it to stop. I want to re-establish stability in Iraq and bring an an end to the violence, and unfortunately there are few realistic options for achieving these result. Unfortunately, regional stability and an end to violence can only be achieved by working with groups who represent substantial numbers of people in the region. That means recognizing and working with the religions people actually have there, not the one we might wish they had.

If you didn't want Islamists to get a foothold in Iraq, perhaps you should have refrained. Perhaps you should have stuck with oppressive, but secular government that existed previously in Iraq. Maybe the Baathists were better. They were brutal, but maybe you think people like Sciri will be worse. You tell me! You and your wild-eyed transformationist buddies are the ones who blew the Saddamist lid off of the Iraqi Pandora's box, and the result has been a war that has killed far more Iraqis than Saddam and his Mukhabbarat could have approached killing in the same amount of time. And the various power brokers who now control the Iraqi scene, like Sciri, are the folks you shook out of the box when you blew it open. If you don't like them, then maybe you shouldn't have blown open the box. But now Iraq's only option is to try to cobble together some sort of resolution among the dominant groups in the country. Don't insult our intelligence by trying to suggest that the pathetic Iraqi "government", with its non-Army and nonexistent public support is going to gain control of the country and turn everyone there into nice little Americanauts. It's not happening.

Perhaps you don't want to bring peace to Iraq, and a restoration of something approximating normal life to its people, but just want Iraq to keep exploding, and to release a chain reaction of "trasnsformative" expolosions across the Middle East, in the hope that someday, after all the violence and destruction has done its work, everything will be "transformed" into a world of nice democracies. I think this aspiration represents revolutionary madness, and must be brought to an end. Fortunately, few of the people who supported it in 2002 still support it, since its failure is manifest. But apparently there are a few holdouts like you.

I really can't believe that you honestly think there is a serious threat that so many Islamist militant will "follow our troops back here" that they will pose a threat of Islamizing America so that we must all think about growing beards. Do you even live in this country. This is absurd paranoid delusion. Get real.

"to our specifications"

"good little liberal democrats"

Dan, this type of stuff opens a huge window into your mentality. I have been accusing you of having just this much contempt for spreading our system, and you deny it consistently, then continue to reaffirm its truth.
I didn't say those quotes above- you did. You have a seething contempt for "our specifications." I don't. I believe that our specifications are enriching, empowering, hope-laden beliefs. I think you have a disdain for the very idea of spreading the American system to other parts of the world. Obviously things need to be tailored to suit regional needs and cultures, but the core of what we are trying to do is admirable, but you have such contempt for it. You and I are "good little liberal democrats" and I am extremely thankful for that. It keeps heat in my house, food in my stomach, it provides me with opportunity, it provides me with a future and it does that for my friends, my family, your friends and your family. Why do you live here if you hate our system so much?

"Don't insult our intelligence by trying to suggest that the pathetic Iraqi "government", with its non-Army and nonexistent public support is going to gain control of the country and turn everyone there into nice little Americanauts. It's not happening"

I think you have a warped picture of things. Iraq is certainly a bad situation. Ethnic enclaves have sprouted up, the streets are dangerous, but outside of Baghdad things are better. The Kurdish areas are better off than before, not worse. If the Iraqi army and police forces can get stronger and more capable, they can control the marsh areas as well. They have victories there every week. It isn't like they are getting decimated by the Madhi army. They are slugging it out with them. They have victories and setbacks. Our goal should be to help empower them to consistently gain victories, not to abandon them.

Even the Iraq Study Group paints a rosier picture of the Iraqi forces than you.
"The Iraqi Army is making fitful progress toward becoming a reliable and disciplined fighting force loyal to the national government. By the end of 2006, the Iraqi Army is expected to
comprise 118 battalions formed into 36 brigades under the command of 10 divisions. Although the Army is one of the more professional Iraqi institutions, its performance has been uneven. The training numbers are impressive, but they represent only part of the story."- ISG report p. 12

The Iraqi army needs time to become better trained and better equipped. They just need time, and a commitment from America. The Iraqi police is a different story. They have major problems, but it is not a lost cause. They have been infiltrated by the Badr group and because they are local, there is too much corruption and participation in the sectarian revenge game.
Do me a favor and read this:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_military_transit.php

Baghdad won't be better until the Sunnis are pacified in some way, and that is a major issue. I don't have a handle on how to do that, but it is worth talking about. Adding 5,000 doesn't sound crazy to me. It sounds incomplete, but it makes sense on many levels.

"We now have a total mess on Iraq. It is a mess that threatens to spread its destructive influence beyond Iraq, and is very dangerous to the health of the world and its people."

How on earth is pulling out of there going to help the situation? Explain that. Talk about a "madcap scheme."
Once we pull out, what do you think is going to happen? If Saudi Arabia and Iran step in to fill the void, how is that going to help American interests or Iraqi interests?
Pulling out is not a strategy, you realize that right?
What is the strategy?

As to the hyperbolic comment about growing a beard, I was making a point. SCIRI and the rest of the Islamists believe that you should absolutely convert. They believe that you are an infidel. They do. They want you to abide by their system, but you do not want them to abide by yours. I think the reason is because you don't consider it yours. You consider it mine, and you think I am an extremist.

Chortle!

"you should be aware that Sadr & Co are the ANTI-Iranian wing of the Iraqi Shia"

I am well aware of the internal shia vs. shia violence. That is why it drives me crazy when people describe the violence as Sunni vs. Shia. That happens, but so does much more local, and many more internal acts of violence.

As far as America (or the rest of western civilization) is concerned there is so real difference between the Badr Organization and the Madhi Army, regardless of the distinctions they draw between themselves.
They are both proponents of Sharia Law.
The people in Kismayo, Somalia, are allowed to listen to the radio again for the first time in months because the Sharia proponents there have been defeated.
I am sure the UIC would have trouble agreeing with Sadr on exactly how to chop off the hands of the infidel, but if your an infidel it doesn't really matter how. We lose our hands either way.

"How do you propose to "address" that?"
I'd like to hear your ideas.
Read this,(Countering Islamists at the Ballot Box: Alternative Strategies) and tell me if it stirs your imagination at all:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=256

I have already given my opinion about that topic many times on the site, but in a nutshell we need to do a better job winning the hearts and minds. We need to help the government provide the fundamental needs of the people better than these Sharia driven groups.
The people want security and services. They will vote for whomever they think can provide these. People in these situations respond to power, and the power difference between the government and these groups is negligible. We need to change that.

> >>I am well aware of the internal shia vs. shia violence. That is why it drives me crazy when people describe the violence as Sunni vs. Shia. That happens, but so does much more local, and many more internal acts of violence.

ya got your Sunnis, who want Saddam or Saddam-lite back: anything to keep the Kurds/Shia under control. Then you have your Shia. SCIRI/Dawa are happy with the Shiite part of Iraq (i.e. the south+ part of Baghdad) under a Shiite theocracy closely aligned with Iran. The Kurds get Kurdistan and the Sunnis can fuck off.

BUT, you got Sadr, who wants Iraq to keep its original boundaries, but to be run by Iraqi Shia (60% of pop.) under the tutelage of M. Al-Sadr, Esquire. As this would be a powerful, Arab-dominated nation-state, it runs contrary to Iranian influence, see?

>> > As far as America (or the rest of western civilization) is concerned there is so [sic] real difference between the Badr Organization and the Madhi Army, regardless of the distinctions they draw between themselves.

That's right, Mr Haines. Because no-one outside Iraq will be at all affected by what these rag-tag bunches of armed peasants do INSIDE Iraq. Just like no-one in Europe (apart from cotton spinners) or anywhere else, was disturbed by the Recent Unpleasantness Between The States, 1860-65. That's why they call it a CIVIL war. Why should Americans die in it?

> >> The people want security and services. They will vote for whomever they think can provide these.

Indeedy. Increasingly they will vote for Moqtada al-Sadr, for these very reasons. Or the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Or whoever. Once again: why should Americans die as a result of these votes?

I don't "hate" or have "contempt" for our system. But I also don't view it with the same unalloyed enthusiasm you do. If I were given the opportunity to set up my own little utopian world, I'm sure it would contain many elements of the American system and way of life, but it would contain elements of other systems as well. It would be particularly different in the economic and communal spheres. So as far as what sorts of values I would personally like to see spread around the world, there are features of the American system and way of life that I would sincerely like to see spread, but other features that I sincerely hope do not spread.

But I'm afraid I wouldn't be too insistent on many of these values, outside a narrow sphere, because with only a few exceptions I don't have very high levels of confidence in my own moral and political insights. I tend to think other people are generally much better at working out their own way of life than I am in instructing them how to live. What I really hold in contempt is not our system, but the revolutionary will to power which elevates that system or any other political system - the product of a human imagination - into a religion, and then seeks to transform the world through violence to fit the ideal pattern in the mind of the revolutionary.

I also don't have a high regard for domination. My mocking tone in the phrase "good little liberal democrats" is directed not at liberal democracy, as such, but "good little". My view is that the United States wants and seeks a world full of obedient, compliant, unthreatening copies of itself, existing under US overlordship or "primacy". That doesn't strike me as a particularly democratic ideal, but it is one that lots of Americans and American foreign policy thinkers frankly avow. It's not the system specified, but our arrogant presumption to write the specifications and do the specifying, with little regard for how people in these other parts of the world do live or want to live, that turns me off.

The "Iraqi government", as far as I can tell, is just a shallow coalition of the various power groups in Iraq - the two Kurdish parties, the Sadrists, Sciri, Da'wa, the Islamic Virtue Party, the Iraqi Islamic Party. That's about it. We're talking about here is the Kurds and a few powerful, mostly Shiite Islamic parties. Those are the major players. The other parties are negligible.

The Iraqi Army consists of members of the militias of these groups, who sometimes put on Iraqi uniforms.

The Kurds are indeed better off than they were before. I suggest we begin looking at things the way I suspect most of the Kurds do. They see the Iraqi government as a transitional element in their community's progress toward greater autonomy and ultimate independence. That is why they wanted the 'federalism" provisions built into the Constitution. They are on the path toward building their own country.

And as far as I can tell, Sciri is likely to be the dominant power in southern Iraq, whether they play this role under the aegis of the Iraqi government or not. You can get your Badr brigades serving as police and soldiers dressed up in Iraqi army uniforms, or dressed up in their own special Badr uniforms. But it will be the same thing either way. The other significant Shiite power is the Mahdi Army. Despite the "surge", they will be the other major Shiite player.

The only way that will be altered is if one of the two groups defeats the other. They are certainly not going to be defeated by any some neutral contingent of the Iraqi Army. There is no such neutral contingent of any significant size. The "secularists" don't have their own militia, and there don't appear to be too many of them anyway. As it turns out, most of the Shia Muslims in Iraq are ... (gasp) ... Shia Muslims!

In my original comment in this thread I thought I made it clear that I do not see US withdrawal from Iraq as in itself a strategy for bringing peace to Iraq, but only an essential component of that strategy. Pulling out is part of the solution because a good deal of the violence is targeted at US forces.

If Saudi Arabia and Iran step in and start fighting each other, it will not help Iraqi or American interests at all. However, Iraq cannot be stabilized without participation from both of these states. These are the countries that are actually in the region, who have networks of supporters and allies, intelligence on the ground, influence among rival groups, etc. They will continue to be there after we are long gone.

One thing that might happen when the US leaves is that the Saudis begin sending arms and money to their Sunni co-religionists in the insurgency, and allowing a freer flow of Sunni jihadists into Iraq. They in effect threatened us with this move a couple of weeks ago. In order for the Shiites of Iraq to secure their communities and defend themselves against potential Sunni aggression, both the US and the Iranians will have to support the Shiites.

I know you hate the idea of working with Iran. But we have an excellent opportunity here for an opening with Iran, and also a way of showing that the Saudis don't have us tied around their fingers.

Mr Haines

As you requested, I just read the "Alternative Strategies" paper at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=256

I'll be perfectly frank and admit it didn't "stir my imagination" at all. First we have Soner Cagaptay, not an Arab, much less an Iraqi, from a country, Turkey, which is regularly touted as a model for a Muslim democract - and yet which is a country which increasingly tends to elect Islamist governments whose main check is the military coups which periodically boot them out of office. His prescription? The CIA should pour money to the Islamists' opponents as they did to the (massively corrupt) Italian Christian Democrats throughout the Cold War! After all, as Mr Cagaptay says, if it worked in 1940s Italy, it can work in 2007 Iraq!!!!

Then we have F. Gregory Gause III. I don't know what the F stands for. Nor do I know why s/he needs a Roman numeral to distinguish him/herself from the entirely obscure Gauses I and II. But nonetheless, FGG III sez: "the US will not like the governments that Arab democracy produces".

No shit.

S/he goes on: "right now I say we should put [democracy in the Arab world] on the back burner".

Then there's Mona Makram-Ebeid. She supports engaging with the "reformist wings of Islam". I can't argue with that. I can only ask GHaines etc; where does one find these people? And, crucially: how many battalions do these reformy-muslims have??

"But at least they have the radio and qat now. A the sweet breath of freedom."

It's a good thing we got out of there when we did. Imagine how bad things could have been in 13 years if we stayed?

I have a question for you, Dan.
Do you think Libertarians have a valid argument?

Freedom. Do you think they have a valid argument about their basic philosophy for society? Do you know what Libertarians stand for? How would they see what you said mockingly about "sweet breath of freedom" ?
You mocked the freedom the Somalis have now. Do you see any inherent value to freedom?

Does the Orwellian police state of the Muslim KKK seem better to you than the failed state run by brutal warlords that it emerged from?

"I'll be perfectly frank and admit it didn't "stir my imagination" at all."

It doesn't bother you at all that these groups win some elections? Don't you think we should try to make sure they lose popular support? Do you suggest we support what Algeria did in 1992, or do you suggest we do nothing and just hope that Islamic Fundamentals decide they love American values all of a sudden?
What is your strategy here?

"where does one find these people?"
That’s easy. They are the ones with the guns against their temples, who you recommend we leave to defend themselves. The ones who win the elections are the ones with their fingers the trigger, and the masks covering their faces.

Here are some other important quotes from the paper:
"Concepts such as democracy, good governance,
and pluralism evoke at least partial distrust among
the majority of Egyptian citizens because of the government’s
systematic misuse of these principles."

"To return to the liberals, it is clear that they’re
unable to fashion a message attractive to large numbers
of citizens. Their abstract message about democracy
resonates only at the very general level and has failed to
serve as the basis for political mobilization."

My question for you is this: What can we do to help our values compete with theirs for the public's heart? I think free market liberal democracy is a wonderful thing that saves lives and empowers the human race. I am sure you feel the same way. How can we galvanize people in the Middle East with the same enthusiasm we have? The message of Islamic Fundamentalism provides something emotional for dejected people, but what we have to offer provides much more. The problem is that they don't all know that. How do we sell it to them on the local level?

Do you realize these are the same arguments that Stalin and Mao made?
Say whatever you want, call it sarcasm, but you are still arguing that the freedoms the Somalis now have are worse than the control they lived under. That is clearly your argument, just stand up for it.
Big Brother kept Winston from getting mugged on the streets, big deal. There is a reason that people fight for freedom. People throughout history have proven many times over that they would rather die violently trying to be free than live under oppression.
According to your philosophy, Toussaint L'Ouverture should have kept his mouth shut because he opened a can of worms throwing of the shackles. Maybe you're right. Haiti has been a mess ever since. They should have stayed with the option that offered them peace and security.
I think you are onto something, Dan!

Black people weren't shooting each other in America until they had the freedom to carry guns either. Maybe Lincoln should have thought about the good side to slavery before he recklessly gave them freedom. Now they are living in ghettoes and shooting each other.
African-Americans can learn a lesson from the Somali people-- there really is "peace in slavery."

You defend the Klan in the Muslim world, do you defend the Klan in America? If the KKK had members win elections in America, would you shrug your shoulders and say, “Well, if that’s what people in Macon County want, that’s what they should get.”
Does the thought of David Duke or Robert Byrd scare you? Do you care at all?
The only difference between Islamic Fundamentalists and the KKK is that most Americans aren’t sympathetic to the KKK even though we share similar religious beliefs and skin color.

I am not going to simmer down. If anything I'll simmer up, if that is possible.
If the UIC or the local warlords are running things, it is terrible. The only reason it makes me happy is because the brutal thugs who might regain control are not connected to a global ideology that inspires people to blow themselves up on buses and trains. Isolated evil is less of a threat to America, and a more manageable threat for us to deal with if our government decides to intervene.
In a perfect world, we would be strong enough to go in there 30,000 strong and set order, get some PRTs in there, reconstruct the cities, set up hospitals, schools, get foreign investors to build Daewoo plants and Nike factories.
We probably don't have the means to do too much there because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it would be great at least to get civilians on the ground in Mogadishu with knowledge of local customs and language who could make an impact on revitalizing the city.
I think failed states are a mess. They are terrible for the people who live in them, and they are breeding grounds for fanatics who have power hungry desires. If these fanatics are globally connected and supported by a global ideology, it means trouble for people outside of the borders as well.
The problem in Somalia may have gone from potential global threat to potential local threat. That is a step in the right direction.

"Right now, you simply have no basis for your claim that the Somalis now enjoy more freedoms - none at all"

Ok, you can dismiss the people cheering in the streets. I don't give too much attention to that because people naturally throw support behind power so power doesn't crush them. That makes sense, but the bottom line is that the people were cheering. Maybe you missed the footage.
I have seen maybe half a dozen interviews with shop owners and merchants who were listening to the radio, smoking cigarettes, and playing soccer. Maybe you missed those too.

"If you and I want to meet in some coffee shop somewhere to have an enjoyable discussion of our views of life, we are free to do so because we can be reasonably sure that while we are there or on the way there, no one is going to take our money at gunpoint on behalf of a local godfather."

Don't you think this truth has something to do with the fact that we live under a better system than many people in the world? You have to admit that, please. Better for us, and better for them too.
If that is true, why would you be so resistant to spread that system to these places that live in a world where "Life was apparently an undending shakedown at the mercy of armed toughs"?

"But that doesn't mean such a life is worse than anything else."

I don't think history backs up your claim here, Dan. 1984 resonates with so many people because oppression is generally thought of as the worst. War may be hell, but most of the wars that have been fought have been because one group no longer wanted to be oppressed. If the war was worse, people would just deal with the oppression. It would obviously depend on the degree of oppression and the prospects of the outcome of a war, but in general history has proven you wrong here. Communism is one of the more oppressive, scary things that happened in the 20th century, and Islamic Fundamentalism is worse by an order of magnitude.
People in North Korea basically gave consent to be governed by communists, and I would bet that an overwhelming majority regret that consent with every fiber of their body. We'll never know because they aren't allowed out of the country. That is communism. Islamists are not as nice as that.

"But that doesn't mean such a life is worse than anything else."

Answer the charge though, Dan. How would you feel if the KKK won state assembly seats in your state? Would you shrug it off as democracy working? Don't you agree that the voters who got the KKK elected were doing themselves and the rest of us a disservice? What is the difference between the KKK and the Mahdi Army or Hizballah to you?

Incidentally, I think you are underestimating Ahamdinejad. He is not stupid, not by a long shot. Did you see him dismantle Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes? He scares me to death because I think he is a lot sharper than our guy (all jokes aside).

What is your actual point? That Somalia would be better off with the Islamic fundamentalists in charge? Other than the Ethopians are supporting the government of Somalia in what way is the U.S. supporting the Ethopians?

Ethiopian forces do seem to be helping the Somilia government suppressing Islamistis. If it is not for good so what? The fact that it takes a long time to accomplish the mission only makes Bush a liar not that it isn't worth doing the mission.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Dan, that was one of the best posts you've ever made! Thanks!

A simple question for you G.  How many lives must be lost before the price of "freeing people" becomes too high?  Or do you feel there should be no limit?

And I think most wars post 19th century have been more in response acts of agression by sovereign nations against other sovereign nations and not for some utopian ideal (and borderline marxist) of ending oppression of the masses.

"I think most wars post 19th century have been more in response acts of aggression by sovereign nations against other sovereign nations"

Libertine,
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Just because you think it is true, doesn't mean it is true. First of all, even if one sovereign nation attacks another, it is only a war if the attacked nation fights the oppression. Even in your example you prove my point. Secondly, most of the wars since WWII, and virtually every one since 1990 have been civil wars.
There have been more secessions than irredentas and annexations.
Factor in terrorist acts against governments and the number skyrockets even further.
You are simply wrong. The facts are what they are. If you still don't believe me, do some research and prove it to yourself.

" How many lives must be lost before the price of "freeing people" becomes too high? "

I think every situation is different, first of all. To come up with a universal bench mark is silly. I realize you think 3,000 is too many. If that was our benchmark throughout history, we would have lost every war we fought, Nazis would rule all of Europe, Jews would have been exterminated and according to you the world would be a better place. I realize you feel that way, but many of us don't.
Do me a favor, put a precise number on these answers for me:

13 MILLION Soviets died fighting the Nazis. Where would your cutoff have been if you were running the Soviet Union?

1.3 Million Chinese died fighting the Japanese. At what point would you have surrendered, if you were running China?

We lost 4,435 fighting for our freedom. We should have given up after 3,000, right?

You can't fight a war if your primary goal is to keep casualties low. That is an unfortunate fact of war. You surrender when you think you have no more hope of winning. Our casualty count is nowhere near the number that would require us to surrender based on that. I am not a military logistician, so I can't put an exact number on it, but I would take the word of the military commanders. They know what the numbers are. If we got to some number like 50,000 (the number we lost in WWI, fighting a foreign war for no reason) the military might say, "OK, we have to surrender" and I would support their analysis.
If the military said that 3,500 was the magic number, I would believe them. I think we would have to lose substantially more than that to make the military feel that we could not win.

Daniel, In answer to your question, no I am not implying that Somalia would be better off under the Islamo fascists. I just thought Daalder is exagerating and oversimplifying by trying to convey that this conflict has been solved and was done so with a magical solution that only he understands. He is contrasting Somalia with Iraq which is a false premise on numerous levels. Somalia is not solved and won't be for some time. The Bush administration is planning to expand our military base in Djibouti to act as a hub for combatting our enemies around the Horn. Our presence is expanding in the region, not packing up to go home.

In answer to your question about our assistance, We openly stated our support in concept of the Ethiopian incursion, we have supplied intelligence liasons, Aerial and Satelite photographs showing key targets for the Ethiopian Mig fighters, and some say we have commited to guarentee petroleum resources to fuel the mechanized units. Expect an increased level of US influence in the region.

Your other question, yes it is clear and obvious that it is good to not only suppress the Islamists, it is important that we destroy them completely. After Clinton left our soldiers swinging in the wind in Blackhawk down, which Les Aspin admitted was botched by Clinton because of Clinton's domestic political fears, It emboldened Islamic terrorists, it accelrated the spiral of chaos, it made Osama Bin Laden a hero, and most importantly it castrated Clinton's foreign policy team (including Daalder) with fears of another Vietnam.

This set the tone for the catastrophic failure in Rwanda by not only failing to act, but obstructing those that might have acted. Yes, we need to mop up another foreign policy fiasco left behind from the 90s so I agree with you, it is a good thing to destroy the Islamo fascists and yes like all wars, you are right, it will take a long time. Great to hear you support the President on this,..but I am not sure what you are refering to about Bush being a liar. That's a serious charge to make about a President. Some evidence would be great. Thanks for your response.

I don't think I said anything that suggested these groups are "like any other form of government". But I don't believe it helps us to think clearly when we roll them all into a single undifferentiated ball.

There is intolerance everwhere. As a non-religious person, I have lived my whole life in a world where most people view me as a sinner, infidel, unbeliever, what have you. I'm used to it. So in looking at people and organizations who have these beliefs, my main concern is what actual threat they pose to me and others, not what they think of me. If I and my beliefs disgust them or terrify them, that is their business. If they seek to do me harm because of it, then it is my business.

There is nothing hidden about my agenda. I have described it many times. As far as the Middle East goes, my only agenda is to prevent a broad regional war - one the US would certainly be a part of - and to prevent an even broader global war that a Middle Eastern war could very easily spark. Avoiding such a war will require accepting the existence of ways of life and forms of government you and I would not want to live under. You may believe that all of these ways of life and forms of government are so fiendishly evil that we must fight such a war to end them. I don't agree with you.

So I am in favor of making deals, writing treaties, establishing and preserving the peace, and then letting time, talk and patience do the work of bringing progressive change gradually over time. Call it appeasement if you will, but my only goal is to save the most lives over the long run.

During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were locked in a global competition. Responsible individuals on both sides, in and out of government, had to work very hard to prevent that grinding, smoldering competition from sparking a global war, and the nuclear exchange that such a war would have entailed. This effort required making deals at times with the Russians. It involved tolerating certain states of affairs we might otherwise have opposed. Russians who hated capitalism had to summon the same effort at restraint. But the efforts of people like this saved us from mass incineration.

A difference between the current situation and the Cold War is that the Islamist movement poses nothing like the same level of threat that the Soviet Union posed, and is much more manageable. Despite the tendency of some hysterics to run around with their hair on fire about the alleged Islamofascist threat, and to shout out constant warnings about evil Muslims under the bed, and crawling in through the windows, we are not facing a problem of that order of magnitude.

I don't know if you have any children. I do. My son is 16, and I refuse to sit by in silence and watch fanatics drag the world into the same sort of carnage their fanatical forbears created in WWI and WWII, and decimate another generation of young men in the process.

Lighting out of Lebanon is in my view a piece of sensationalist propaganda out of the FDD. It seeks to build a horrific spectre of threat from a very small basis of evidence. I know Joe Lieberman is a big fan of the book, though.

TJ- George W. Bush has done nothing but mislead, lie, prevaricate, spin, trump up fear, play politics with war and terror, fabricate, exaggerate, and misinform the America public since before he was elected.

Some examples of when he ever told the truth might be in order.

As to your lame list of reasons for war, none are worth the loss of one American's life.

Bush played war president politics, with the use of force resolution coming in October 2002, to game the system and start his fiasco of an illegal war in Iraq.

I'll expand briefly.

1. "We had to invade Iraq because Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out." Please note that Clinton and Albright had nothing to do with it, don't know why you want to bring them into it except as a distraction. Inspectors were in Iraq at this time four years ago, a time when George Bush was President. They found no evidence of so-called WMD, and subsequently reported their findings. They were recalled from Iraq in time for our invasion of same, not kicked out by Saddam. I cannot count the number of times since then that Bush has justified the invasion by claiming that Saddam kicked the inspectors out, but you could probably Google it if you have never heard him say it.

2 & 3. "We had to invade Iraq because Saddam was harboring senior members of Al Qaeda." and "We had to invade Iraq because Saddam was providing critical training to Al Qaeda terrorists." Abu Musab al Zarqawi was reported to be in Kurdish northern Iraq in the period prior to our invasion. As was well known, perhaps even to the President, American forces were busily engaged in keeping Saddam from having any presence or influence in Kurdish northern Iraq at the time, so Saddam was in no position to be harboring him. Furthermore, even though Zarqawi later allied himself with Al Qaeda and was accepted by Osama bin Laden, that close association did not exist prior to the invasion. No one has claimed that Abu Nidal or Abu Abbas were al Qaeda operatives, so whether they were in Iraq is irrelevant to the claims about al Qaeda.

4. "We had to invade Iraq because they were behind 9/11." Creating false impressions and creating false linkages are clever ways of lying. For years, George Bush, personally, in public utterances, has closely linked al Qaeda, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. The narrative is woven inextricably into his claim that "9/11 changed everything." His hand-picked lieutenants - Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld - have filled in the details. Even after he was recently pinned to the mat at a press conference and forced to say there was no connection, he turned around and repeated the lie just a few weeks later. If you haven't noticed, it is something else you might be able to Google.

I was quite aware of the multiple questions G.  I prefaced as a simple question but it really wasn't.  My question really wasn't about how many deaths represent "military defeat".  My question was: when considering whether to undertake military actions, not in response to a direct attack on the US, is there (and if so what is the number) a cost-benefit consideration in terms of casualties (both US military and civilian casualties) in achieving our goals?

Well in your response numbered (1).  In your latest post you claim that our victory in Iraq is important because it is we need to show democracy can work in the Middle-East?  In your post before this last one it seemed you were going the humanitarian route and saying it was important to free people from oppression.  Which is it?  Stopping the oppression of people and spreading democracy are different reasons.  Even if democratic regimes tend not to oppress their people as much as other forms of government oppression can be stopped without the country's form of government being altered, the 2 are not interdependant.  I don't find spreading democracy, especially to further Amrerica's best interests, as a compelling reason to have the casualties that have been seen in post-war Iraq.  And there already are democracies in the region.  Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey already show democracy can work in the region.  If Iraq doesn't become a new shining example of democracy in action does it mean that the other regional democracies are doomed to failure? 

And as far as Extremist Islam being a threat in terms of gaining political power in a country.  Please give me an example.  And don't throw Iran at me because that country has a high rate of young people getting higher education, they are probably one of the more technologically advanced and have the highest level of health care of the countries in the region...even if the ayatollahs are calling the shots.  If extremists were calling the shots it would be more like Afghanistan was.  And that is the only one in the region that jumps to mind and nary a country in the region had any qualms with us going in there and taking out the Taliban.  If you look at the region Egypt, Syria and Pakistan are ruled by nationalists.  Saudi Arabia and Jordan are ruled by monarchs.  I do not see an institutionalized Islamic extremist threat in the region.  And therefore I don't see the justification for 300,000-500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in that rationale.

Then you mention China.  Hundreds of thousands of people have to die to ensure that our interests are protected from the Chinese projecting their economic power into the region?  I find that argument without merit when we discuss justifications for wars and the ensuing deaths...

As far as repsonse numbered (2) goes.  To me it is moot "when" Bush lost the support of the American people.  Popular support isn't a legitimate rationale for bad policies and bad wars...

In terms of your response numbered (3).  The loss of the servicemen and women in a war where they are not defending the US from attack from another sovereign nation is appalling.  The money being wasted on this war is obscene but the loss of the people who have volunteered to defend our country (risking their lives to do so) is a tragedy.  The damage inflicted on our military in the Bush Iraq intervention defies justification...

To answer your question...not one single American life should have to be given to spread "liberal free market democracy" anywhere...period.  To spread "free market" economies?  Nobody should have to die so someone else can make money.  Our ideals speak for themselves.  And if they have to be spread by coersion or wars it undermines the message all of those ideals we claim to hold true thus damaging liberty and freedom...

As you asked I googled "Iraq+kicked out" and of the first ten items only one refered to inspectors being referred to as "kicked out" of Iraq. Again, this was the Clinton/Albright reference that I made earlier. FAIR a self proclaimed liberal watchdog group was decrying the term kicked out as it pertained to the 1998 Operation Desert Fox. I had not intended the Clinton reference as a distraction as you allege, only an example of how nearly everybody ignored the term in 1998 because it was universally understood then as a figurative statement (i.e. Saddam made their presence in Iraq pointless and their exit would be inevitable for that reason). The Republican leadership expressed full support for Clinton and his choice to initiate Desert Fox. I could not find nor have I ever heard anybody accuse Bush of "lying" in this regard.

Your other statement that it was "well known" that Saddam did not have any influence in the North of Iraq. First I don't think it is true that he didn't have "any influence" and I believe this doesn't lessen the argument, in fact, it bolsters the argument that he worked with Ansar al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda cell that fought frequently with the PUK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/21/wiraq21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html

The links between Saddam and Ansar Al-Islam as well as Al Qaeda have this past year become even more clear, based on interrogations and documentary evidence captured.

Does this mean Saddam ordered planes into the WTC? Bush has never alleged this.

If you read my previous post and the speech before the UN on 9/12/02, you will see he mentioned Saddam's breaking a UNSCR by supporting and harboring terrorists that have attacked us. He also mentioned that Al Qaeda members have fled to Iraq from Afghanistan. Those two statements are fact.

I also disagree with your statement that Zarqawi and OBL had no close association prior to the war. Zarqawi and OBL met in Afghanistan in 1989 while the Soviets were there and agreed to work together. Zarqawi later setup an Al Qaeda cell in Herat, Afghanistan in 1999 with a $200,000 endowment from OBL. After being wounded in a US attack he fled Afghanistan and was treated for wounds in Uday Hussein's Hospital in Iraq. In 2002, he became a leader of Ansar Al-Islam and from his base in Iraq he orchestrated the assination of US Diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan. He made numerous trips to and from Baghdad in 2002, and remained in operation in Iraq, before, during and After the invasion.

My remarks about Abu Nidal and Abbas were not intended to put them in the same camp as Al Qaeda or OBL. Again, Bush's prewar statements stated that Saddam had allowed terrorists that have attacked us to function and reside in Iraq. The Achille Lauro and Lockerbie terrorists lived in palatial estates owned by Iraqi Intelligence before the Invasion. He was in violation of UN resolutions for this. Bush did not claim Saddam flew planes into WTC, he only said this was an outlaw regime with a pattern of and was working with our terrorist enemies and he would treat him as he did Afghanistan.

Your final paragraph where you attribute "cleverness" to Bush in his ability to Lie. I don't see it although he may be clever for other reasons.

I often hear people claim he "lies" because they believe there are people that are easily duped and might listen to his speeches about Saddam and draw conclusions about things Bush never said. If the American people read his prewar speeches to the UN and the American people, they will find that the main points (the ones that I previously mentioned) he states are statements of fact and not lies.

Furthermore, implying that Bush used "Cleverness" to appear to be speaking the truth but in your opinion he was lying because you believe people of low intelligence, drew conclusions that they may not even hold. I have never heard anyone concerned about Bush using the term "kicked out" with regard to inspectors and if there is some large group laboring under the false impression that they were, Google is not providing a lot of information about Bush duping them into believing it.

I am not making a case for war, only saying I don't see the evidence of the lies you mentioned. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Clinton is still not the issue. Nor the Achille Lauro. Nor Lockerbie. Nor is the new diversion you raise about unidentified people of low intelligence the issue.

I spent a couple of minutes Googling and following links to the low-hanging fruit, and easily found four instances where our President used formal press conferences to blame his invasion of Iraq on Saddam’s alleged failure to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. They are excerpted and packaged for you below. Bush has lied clearly, intentionally and consistently about this, from shortly after the invasion to quite recently.

ONE

Bush and Kofi Annan met and then briefed the White House press corps on July 14, 2003, in which he famously said “And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.” You can find the full text at (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html). Here is an excerpt:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dana, one last question.
Q Mr. President, back on the question of Iraq, and that specific line that has been in question [referring to the President’s statements about yellowcake in his State of the Union address]--
THE PRESIDENT: Can you cite the line? (Laughter.)
Q I could, if you gave me some time.
THE PRESIDENT: When I gave the speech, the line was relevant.
Q So even though there has been some question about the intelligence -- the intelligence community knowing beforehand that perhaps it wasn't, you still believe that when you gave it --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

TWO

On January 27, 2004, Bush met the Polish Prime Minister in the White House. During the presser that followed, he said about Saddam and his alleged weapons program “He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.” The full text is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-3.html. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, Dave.
Q Mr. President, but how do you describe and account for the difference between what you claimed prior to the war about what he possessed and what he was capable of, and what the intelligence said he possessed and was capable of in terms of a nuclear weapon within the decade, and the fact that David Kay says the intelligence was inaccurate and wrong, and nothing has been found? Don't you owe the American people an explanation?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think the Iraq Survey Group must do its work. Again, I appreciate David Kay's contribution. I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.

THREE

The following is an exchange with the inestimable Helen Thomas, during a presser on March 21, 2006, which is very revealing of the President’s style of dissembling. Among other things, he said “And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.” You can find the full text at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060321-4.html. Here’s the exchange with Thomas.

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --
Q Everything --
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.
Q -- everything I've heard --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --
Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --
Q I'm talking about Iraq --
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences -
Q -- go to war --
THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

FOUR

Once more into the breach. Bush held a press conference in Chicago on July 7, 2006, where he said “And so the choice was Saddam Hussein's choice. He could have not fooled the inspectors. He could have welcomed the world in. He could have told us what was going on. But he didn't. And so we moved.” The text is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060707-1.html. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

THE PRESIDENT: I have always said that it's important for an American President to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the use of force. Committing our troops into harm's way is a difficult decision. It's the toughest decision a President will ever make. And I fully understand the consequences of doing so.
All diplomatic options were exhausted, as far as I was concerned, with Saddam Hussein. Remember that the U.N. Security Council resolution that we passed when I was the President was one of 16, I think -- 16, 17? Give me a hand here. More than 15. (Laughter.) Resolution after resolution after resolution saying the same thing, and he ignored them. And we tried diplomacy. We went to the U.N. Security Council -- 15-to-nothing vote that said, disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.
I happen to believe that when you say something you better mean it. And so when we signed on to that resolution that said, disclose, disarm or face serious consequences, I meant what we said. That's one way you keep the peace: You speak clearly and you mean what you say.
And so the choice was Saddam Hussein's choice. He could have not fooled the inspectors. He could have welcomed the world in. He could have told us what was going on. But he didn't. And so we moved.

Am I to think you are sincere? Diversion, obfuscation and willful misunderstanding bracketed by polite language do not constitute honest dialogue. Let's try this:

Granted, instead of saying that Bush lied when he said Saddam had kicked the inspectors out, I should have said that Bush lied when he said that Saddam had not let the inspectors in. My mistake.

Now to your original request. Four instances of this one lie are in front of you, each quoted directly from the mouth of George W. Bush, with links to the White House Web site where you can independently verify them.

Deal with the lie or don't.

Who killed 500,000 people in Iraq?
The only one that comes to mind is Saddam Hussein. Do you really think that American Marines are setting off car bombs? Are they going undercover to somehow make Bush look bad? I hope you don't actually believe that. My guess is that you don't, but I may be overestimating you.

Libertine, I get a kick out of your posts, but I hope you don't mind if I decline to respond.
You are very cute, and very passionate, but I can't take you under my wing and teach you all this stuff. You need to do some research on your own.

If I understood your first paragraph, Only the most delusional can see these things that you believe. But I think I know what you were trying to get across.

In your second paragraph, I imagine the countries (plural) you are refering to in your allusion to President Bush disgracing us are Afghanistan and Iraq.

You said: "...or attack countries that have done nothing to you,.."

You are trying to tell me Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing to me? If Saddam Hussein tries hurt one American or harbors terrorists that have killed Americans, I consider that doing something to me. (Never mind the 100s of thousands of deaths he caused). And Afghanistan? You ask me if I have moral scruples? Do you not have any sympathy at all for your brothers and sisters? OBL was refered to as the minister of Defense of Afghanistan. When he murdered thousands of my countrymen, he did something to me.

Like a buffalo that won't raise his head from grazing in the comfort of 9 to 5 pastures when his neighbor is shot down, you too will be a target someday, because of your self centered apathy.

The link to David Kay is dead, but I found something in the WP on 1/19/03 that probably contains what you're talking about. Kay is a smart man. Yes, he had opinions about the on-going inspections when that article was published. They were just that, opinions, based on his work many years earlier, since he was not the one conducting the current inspections.

After the Bush invasion, and after his professional search of the country, Mr. Kay had facts instead of opinions and he had the grace, honesty and courage to report to the nation that there were no WMDs in Iraq, nor any evidence of a current and competent attempt to rebuild WMD capability.

Your opinion that Bush had no motive to lie is free-floating speculation, anchored in nothing. His repeated statements about how Saddam had a choice to make, about the failure of inspections and about how Saddam’s 15-year earlier (US-supported) buildup and use of WMDs proved he was a threat to the world, were all part of the final phase of a campaign to sell his invasion to the American people. Bush was a highly motivated guy. After the war, he was highly motivated to justify the disaster he caused by pinning it on anything he could, including Saddam’s alleged failure to let the inspectors in. Good motives all.

If Bush really meant what you think he meant, he had four formal opportunities over three years to say so. Instead, he said what he said. He said his decision to invade was caused by Saddam's failure to let the inspectors in.

In the end, there is this stark fact. There were no WMDs. There was no program to develop WMDs. So, when you say the Iraqis would not “let us inside the secret world of Saddam’s weapons program, “ what are you talking about?

I think the long-term goals would be to make Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia as productive, free and peaceful as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. If that can happen in this century, great.

I wonder whether the American military presence in Iraq is containing the global struggle you describe, rather than exacerbating it.

If we stay, and escalate, do we not also risk drawing Iran, Turkey, China and Russia into the maelstrom?