Cobb

Well, I guess we could argue about this until the cows come home. I've seen nothing convincing that says that Saddam was giving aid terrorists, but maybe you have. The important questions and points now seem to be:

• Was war the only / best way of eliminating the threat Saddam posed? How should we deal with other rogue states in the future? (cf Libya)
• Now that he has gone, has the technique used to remove him increased the threat to the West?
• Are the numbers of innocent people now being killed in Iraq an acceptable sacrifice for (perceived) US security?
• Can an imposed democracy be made to work in Iraq?
• Before we export US-style democracy to the rest of the world, perhaps we should look at the quality of that democracy. Who polices the "world's policeman"?

I'm sure there was something else I meant to say, but my brain's seized up. More later, maybe.

Thanks for the engagement. I think the blog is more popular than the number of comments suggest, I appreciate the feedback - it helps me think.

First off, I think that war with Saddam was inevitable with or without nine-eleven. I'm on the side of the PNAC with regard to the geopolitical stance of the US regardless of the War on Terror. Aside from that, I think any serious debriefing of Colin Powell will demonstrate that all of the international ducks were aligned to escalate the conflict within 90 days of when we dropped the first bomb. So I grumble a lot because I think much of the anti-war sentiment hangs on terminology which was invented by GWBush (WMD) when there were other geopolitical reasons that I think were more serious.

Was war the best way?
I think it was the only way. Uday & Qusay were off the leash, the oil for food program was being subverted, Saddam was taking potshots at our jets in the no fly zone. We were a bit late to save most of the Marsh Arabs, but we have at the very least enabled the Kurds to defend themselves. Also consider that the only way we know what we now know about the absence of WMDs would have been impossible without the hundreds of thousands of troops we have on the ground.

Has the threat level increased?
Absolutely not. The Baby Bin Laden theory is completely discredited. al Sadr has done his worst and it cost him, what 700 militiamen? It cost us 100 servicemen at worst, but this is guerilla conflict. Loonies from Syria may have tried their hand at jihad, but I think everybody knows that's a foolish mistake.

Imposed democracy
In one year, people will be saying that this is one of the history's shortest military occupations. If the Iraqi democracy collapses, exactly whose fault will that be
I would say that the chances of a military coup in Iraq are next to nothing. Imagine some ex-military generals are elevated to the presidency and then they are executed by an opposition party. Then Iraq will have about the same quality of government as Israel does.

Exporting US Style Democracy
It can't happen. We have too many rich, fat, lazy, self-satisfied people for our style of democracy to work anywhere else. Hell, we even have libertarians. But seriously, let's take a look at the Iraqi constitution when it happens. Let's see what kind of rights women get. We'll see then. Who polices us? World markets. Mexicans and Indians who work for less. It's completely out of our control, always has been, always will be. We are in submission to global markets.

saddam is gone thank god. Will the people fight for their freedom? moooo