The main problems with the Iraq war, to me, is a catastrophic failure of leadership from the POTUS, and the damaging lack of ground forces. And I’m afraid it’s a little too late to salvage the operation.

Gotta go.

But you were opposed to our ever being in Iraq, weren’t you? Aren’t you? How could we have “secured the borders to Iraq” if we weren’t in Iraq? And if you don’t and didn’t want us to be in Iraq, then what do you want more troops for?

– First, it’s not “theocratic terrorists” that we have a problem with, it’s islamist terrorists, and these come in a variety of flavors, from secular fascist to religious fundamentalist; those flavors can occasionally be in conflict with one another, but they can just as easily blend, particularly when there’s a prospect of striking a blow at their common enemy, Western civilization, as represented by the US.

– Second, the danger represented by the Saddam regime may not have been immediate, but it was quite clear, and would have needed to be addressed sooner or later, with delay merely adding to the danger. Sanctions were failing, and in any case hurt only the Iraqi people not the regime — and Saddam was ready and waiting to restart the gamut of WMD development the moment they were lifted and the world’s back was turned.

– Third, the geographical locus of the problem isn’t simply Iraq, or Afghanistan, but the entire Middle East, to which Afghanistan is but an outlier, and Iraq is the keystone. The focus was never — or certainly never should have been — on Iraq alone, but rather on Iraq as a lever with which to reform the entire region.

That this hasn’t, so far, happened, represents, so far, a failure alright, but a failure of nerve or political will. It isn’t the first such failure for us, and, sadly, won’t be the last, but each such failure costs us more in the long run than we think we gain in the short. In this case, however, there still remains a glimmer of hope that we will hold onto enough nerve or will long enough to rescue the situation, notwithstanding the determined assaults of the defeatists and ideological collaborationists among us.

Armies without orders can’t plug up any border. The Turkish had fewer troops than we do, but they keep their borders sealed. The Mexicans have crap police and military guys, and they keep their borders sealed to the South. It is about will, not numbers.

The entire Iraq is a logistics camp. A logistics camp that wouldn’t even be there if we had listened to the Cold War folks.

But we wouldn’t even be in Iraq, according to you. So what do you want all those troops for?? Controlling the oil now?! So we’ll need millions of troops to be ready to … what? Invade Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Is that what you want us to get ready for? Cards on the table, Steve. Your bluff has been called.

If we had a larger ground force we could have secured the borders to Iraq, thus preventing the smuggling of terrorists and weapons into that country. We also could have prevented the looting, which helped the terrorists acquire stockpiles. We could have pacified the streets of the big towns before the terrorists were able to regroup, and we would still be able to MAINTAIN such pacification. All of those things would have given us a better chance in Iraq.

As a matter of fact I think there’s a good likelihood that we will have to fight a war to control the Persian Gulf, in the next 20-30 years (I doubt less.) We should have a large force presence in the area both to facilitate our efforts in such as war as well as to serve as a deterrent. A series of camps along the Iraq-Iran border would suit me fine.

Let’s see: he was a secular tyrant but one of the leaders of an Islamic version of the “National Socialist” movements of Europe [catalog of Iraqi misdeeds.]

Sally: As was shown in our invasion, we in fact had no clear and present danger from Iraq. It would have been better to let Saddam stay in charge of Iraq while we went after the people who attacked us on 9/11, it seems to me. Nor was Iraq — thanks to being a police state — a hotbed of theocratic terrorists. However, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and some others clearly were. So those other countries should have had priority over Iraq, if in fact we wanted to make the US more secure.

Five years on, we have an unraveling situation in Afghanistan (in case you missed it), and we have added Iraq to the roster of states that serve as breeding grounds for theocratic terrorists.

Link