...when our supposed enemy was based in Afghanistan? To me, of course, that's like asking why our first major invasion in World War II was in northern Africa when we were attacked by the Japanese in the Pacific. It's a recognition that we're in a regional, if not global war, and it's called strategy. Joe Katzman explains.

Actually, this link does give an excellent argument for regime change in Iraq. Its a pity that wasn't the argument President Bush made to the American people and the Europeans.

Follow up from the link:

This could force the Saudi rulership to confront their Wahhabi clerical establishment, who will oppose this, or face increasing Shi'ite unrest. Win-win situation if you think the Saudis aren't our friends.
IF we can succeed in giving the Iraqi Shi'ites greater freedom. Or should we just pick a military strongman who won't give us trouble in future and isn't as brutal as Saddam? The State Department favours that latter option. Do you?

= = =

Give Iraqi Shias greater freedom? Sistani was our man. By rejecting his call for elections we burned bridges to the one man best situated to carry out the plan described in this excellent essay.

Instead, Bremer and Bush chose a post-Saddam policy of drifting and now the wheels are starting to fall off the bus.

For the millionth freaking time:
Hitler declared war on the United States!

And I would say that Guadalcanal was a pretty major engagement.

We haven't rejected the call for elections. Just for immediate ones.

And as for why that wasn't the argument made, the Europeans wouldn't have accepted it, and we didn't necessarily want to telegraph our intentions to people in places like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So, Hitler declared war on the US. Why didn't we invade Germany?

All of the Arab world declares war on the US every Friday in the mosques. They're just smart enough to not do so formally.

We haven't rejected the call for elections. Just for immediate ones.

Once the golden moment passes, it rarely comes back. If Sadr is martyred, Sistani will have a very difficult time working with us. If not Sistani, then who?

By the way, do you remember the Stratfor piece that suggests Chalabi (Cheney's darling) might well be a double agent really working for Tehran?

And as for why that wasn't the argument made, the Europeans wouldn't have accepted it, and we didn't necessarily want to telegraph our intentions to people in places like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Well, it sure is telegraphed now. My biggest problem with Bush is his blithe over-estimation of our power and his under-estimation of the craftiness of our enemies.

There will be future opportunities for elections. And it doesn't matter if it's telegraphed now. We're there.

Katzman echos Friedman's (and Josh Marshall's January 2003) argument for invading Iraq - so far as Iraq was concerned the U. S. was stuck in a box anyway, so one might as well choose to depart the box in a way that (rhetorically, at least) supports the War in Terror.

However it is not an argument for going in with delusions of flowers and cheering children. It is not an argument for going all panicky about mythical WMD. It is not an argument for bold experiments in military doctrine.

If we have learned anything from the history of Al Qeuda, it is that failed states can be much more dangerous than rogue states. And failure in Iraq will be a massive blow to global security-more so than leaving Saddam be would have been.

There were flowers and cheering children, Duncan. I don't think that anyone ever claimed that there would be only flowers and cheering children.

I think that there have been mistakes made by the administration (I remain on the fence as to whether or not more troops were/are needed), but I've heard nothing from the Kerry camp to indicate that they'd be an improvement in any way.

I don't think that anyone ever claimed that there would be only flowers and cheering children.

I refer you once again to Jim Fallow's excellent article on that issue.

You might not of thought it, I sure as hell didn't think it, but the evidence is that the administration did.

For me the fundamental issue was competence. This was too important to be screwed up by ideologues.

Also see the former Calpundit , who fell off the wagon at about the same point.

My personal view is that President Bush greatly over estimated US capabilities and also under-estimated the difficulty in reconstructing Iraq and therefore he felt free to engage in a two front war.

The second front was a diplomatic war against France, the EU and the United Nations. The invasion of Iraq was to be the tool by which the international order was fundamentally re-shaped with America remaining as the sole hyper-power lying outside of traditional balance of power constraints.

This is why people like Brent Scowcroft (hardly a liberal) are horrified by what 43 has been doing.

The problem with Joe's justification is that it fails to address the opportunity costs of pulling troops and other assets (particularly arabic linguists) out of Afghanistan. Going into Iraq has some justification, but going into Iraq when we did may well have costs us some major victories over Al Qaeda. We can't be sure OBL would be dead or captured by now if those assets hadn't been shifted, but it certainly didn't help. The propaganda victory of a quick destruction of the Taliban followed by a relatively speedy end to OBL would be substantial (and in the end this whole thing is about propaganda - ideas will determine if the US wins or loses).

I was for the war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds.

I had thought that pentagon planners would implement a regional strategy too, and I put this to someone who would know a few months after the war began.

In essence, the response I got was that strategy had nothing to do with it, and in fact that the neocons at the top of DoD had decided take Iraq without strategic deliberation, and in particular they had not considered much except the initial invasion.

Nevertheless, it's done now, so I think the question to ask is how we can move forward in a sensible and hopefully more considered way from here. I know the Pentagon has a lot of bright people, so perhaps the administration could do worse than to seek their advice at this stage.

I have been serving in Iraq for over five months now as a soldier in the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, otherwise known as the "ROCK."

We entered the country at midnight on the 26th of March; one thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from 10 jumbo jets (known as C-17s) onto a cold, muddy field in Bashur, Northern Iraq. This parachute operation was the U.S. Army's only combat jump of the war and opened up the northern front.

Things have changed tremendously for our battalion since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the mountain city of Bashur. On April 10 our battalion conducted an attack south into the oil-rich town of Kirkuk, the city that has since become our home away from home and the focus of our security and development efforts.

Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, in the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands, in their broken English shouting "Thank you, mister."

The people of Kirkuk are all trying to find their way in this new democratic environment. Some major steps have been made in these last three months. A big reason for our steady progress is that our soldiers are living among the people of the city and getting to know their neighbors and the needs of their neighborhoods.

We also have been instrumental in building a new police force. Kirkuk now has 1,700 police officers. The police are now, ethnically, a fair representation of the community as a whole. So far, we have spent more than $500,000 from the former Iraqi regime to repair each of the stations' electricity and plumbing, to paint each station and make it a functional place for the police to work.

The battalion also has assisted in re-establishing Kirkuk's fire department, which is now even more effective than before the war. New water treatment and sewage plants are being constructed and the distribution of oil and gas are steadily improving.

All of these functions were started by our soldiers here in this northern city and are now slowly being turned over to the newly elected city government. Laws are being rewritten to reflect democratic principles and a functioning judicial system was recently established to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the rule of law.

The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored and we are a large part of why that has happened.

The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, there are many more people in the markets and shops and children have returned to school.

This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk's citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.

Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo

"Die dulci fruimini!"