Sdecker: Fact: You cheerleaders are supporting a war that was started under false pretenses (at best)

Irrelevant. Everybody including Saddam, and the French believed Iraq had WMD. They were found, although not in the amounts/condition advertised.

, destabilized a region,

There's been a conspicuous lack of a general war in the near east for some time now. Minus a recent Israeli incursions into Lebanon, the place has been generally stable.

made more enemies,

Hard to say. It's not like we didn't have any before.

alienated our allies,

The French and the Germans? It was almost shameful how Sarkozy and Bush carried on. You'da thought there was some toe tapping under a stall. Merkle was just over at the ranch in Crawford for dinner.

turned a once secular country into an increasingly dogmatic one,

They seem to be getting along lately. What happened to that whole civil war thing?

wasted hundreds of billions of dollars

Waste? In my government run program? More likely then you think.

and produced tens of thousands of casualties.

As long as it's the right causalities then fine. Right being those that want to make you and I dead.


Giblet: Arguing whether the "surge" is a success or not detracts attention from the fact that it was a mistake to invade Iraq

Almost no one would support invading Iraq IF we knew what we know now. Probably not even Bush, it's so helped his presidency ya know... If we would have caught the Japanese fleet before Pearl Harbor we would have prevented it. If we had known about allot of things, other things would have been done.

with an inadequate force

The force need to invade was sufficient. The Iraqi military was defeated, once again, with minimal loss to coalition forces. The force levels were not sufficient for an occupation.

and no plan of attack,

The initial plan of attack worked. Enemy military neutralized, former government deposed.

no plan to manage,

That's the one where most of the problems stem from. The intensity of the insurgency happen, it was not dealt with very well at all for a number of reasons. I don't expect perfection from anyone, but for this issue there is plenty of people who's non-perfections shine right through. These people include the President, the members of the national government that are involved in all things military and or foreign relations, some incompetents come from commanders on the ground (they're human too). What is sorely missing from most people list of blame is that on the Iraqi's themselves.

As recent events have shown, the Iraqi people have more to offer in quelling an insurgency or civil war then all the weapons systems, Washington lawmakers, public opinion polls combined. The United States has invaded other nations, they still have troops stationed overseas since WW2. This isn't the their first day as an occupying power, they can do pretty well, ask the Germans. Everybody know that a turf grab is not what the US is interested in. Even if you subscribe to blood for oil, it's not blood for land. At the end of the day they can keep their crummy country, it's not like it will be admitted for statehood.

and no plan for withdrawal.

What is our plan for withdraw from Korea. I'm ok with concept the of,"return upon success". Sounds like a better deal them US forces stationed in Japan have. Granted Japan is a nice place, by isn't the mission in Japan over? Is there some reason to have them there, or in Germany?