"It isn't the best strategy. But it is the best of a lot of bad choices."

And you know this because? I could agree with `it MIGHT be the best of a bad lot of choices' but it could also be a very bad choice (because using Iraq as a base to pressure others in the region depends on Iraq being a stable base, but we can see in the West Bank and Gaza the problems with an unstable occupation).

"We also “had difficulty uprooting al Qaeda's cells globally, as erstwhile allies hesitated or set terms for their cooperation against it,” as one source puts it."

Could you expound a bit more on this? It frustrates me that we are often presented with "All Or Nothing" as our choices. "Hit Pakistan" or do nothing. Why is uprooting cells, with intelligence and law enforcement, less effective than blowing shit up?

It seems to me that blowing shit up just spreads shit around.

An aside: Pakistan-Musharaf: Now there is a trustworthy ally. We are one big bribe away from al-Quaeda having a real warhead.

This is why I support the proposed invasion of Iraq.

It isn't the best strategy. But it is the best of a lot of bad choices. It is far from the solution, either. My only concern, and one that is emerging among the conservabloggers, is that this administration will do the same thing in Iraq it did in Afghanistan.

My hat is off to you, Sean-Paul...such a relief to see some reasoning from the center-left on this issue.

Regarding post-Saddam Iraq, I look forward to your assessment of Bush's speech on that subject last night at AEI.

we can see in the West Bank and Gaza the problems with an unstable occupation

The instability is solely due to the international constraints placed on the Israelis in their efforts to combat terrorism. I can assure you that an occupying force in Iraq will not be nearly so restrained as the IDF. In addition, there will be no UN-financed "refugee camps" to facilitate the production of bomb factories.

Under the best of circumstances we will leave these countries as resentful democracies with angry people and destroyed infrastructure (I don't personally believe we are committed to spending nearly enough to do the rebuilding job adequately), under the worst of circumstances we will be involved in a long occupation a l'Algerie. Either way we will spend billions to do it. If it is the best of bad choices it is because we have an administration that has neither patience nor imagination.

This is the argument that has won people like Thomas Friedman over to supporting the Bush strategy. And, as ideas go, it's not a bad one. Who wouldn't love to see a democratic Iraq being an inspiration for a wave of democritization throughout the middle-east? (Well, not the Saudi royal family and certainly not bin Laden).

But, again, the problem comes down to who is in charge and do you trust them to actually be able to fulfill that dream, let alone actually trust them when they say that is what they want to do?

I don't trust Bush on either count. He is incompetent and he is corrupt and he will almost certainly screw this up like has screwed up nearly everything else he has ever tried.

Right-o, Chris Andersen. Not to mention the fact that it is incredibly strange to listen to the US government talking about forceably installing democracy in a foreign country. When have we ever gone to war for this reason, and seemingly this reason alone? "Saddam is a bad man, and Iraq would look soo damn hot as a democracy." Hello? Reality check. Iraq and Saddam. Two different things. Iraq and Japan. Two VERY different things.
What you and Bush profess to want from this insane adventure in national egotism is not possible. It can never be brought about by our military might, even if we had unlimited funds and unlimited military forces. As soon as we pull our forces out, Iraq and Afghanistan will revert to their default governments. So what is the point of this war again?

It seems like the administration's strategy for drumming up support for the war is to come out with a new and contradictory reason every week until everyone is satisfied with their own justification. First, the reason for war was to disarm Iraq of particular weapons. Then, it was because Iraq and Osama Bin Laden were in cahoots. Then it was because Iraq could attack us with little vials of white powder. Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people we so dearly care about. Now the reason is to democratize the entire region. I've actually lost count of all the "one true" justifications given. It seems that the goal is to say all the right things to get people to agree to war. Nevermind that the stated intentions have changed dramatically since the start of this charge to war.
I remember Colin Powell testifiying before the Senate (this might've been during the summer or early fall) saying that the war was NOT about regime change. Now, this is a humanitarian war. Tomorrow, it'll be something else.

Right-wing gas-factory Bill O'Reilly talks about giving Bush "the benefit of the doubt". Well, why should anyone? Bush and friends have continually shown just how untrustworthy they are ("sorry afghanistan...we ran out of money. tough luck"), and there isn't any reason to believe that they won't continue lying, breaking promises, and wasting my money on these immoral, illegal wars.

"It isn't the best strategy"

Could you name a worse strategy? Just so we can compare I mean. I can't think of a worse strategy short of giving Al-Qaeda the nukes right now and just getting it over and done with. In any case if it isn't the best strategy then can you explain why you are endorsing it?

Were are still talking about terrorism right? This strategy is going to increase terrorism. You know that, right? I would say a good strategy would be one that would decrease terrorism. Is that being too picky or something?

Agonist - this latest comment of yours is sheer nonsense. The tactics you endorse are practically calculated to increase terrorism. It's like a recipie for terrorism. (1) Stir up the locals vastly (2) disrupt the middle east and flood it with weapons (3) make sure everyone knows this is an American war on muslims (4) make sure you have a president who is incapable of diplomacy (5) bomb Mecca (6) place US soldiers in easy to hit places -- like a ten year occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (7) do everything you can to shatter any political support with your allies.

I've probably missed a few pointers but that's enough isn't it? How could it get any worse? I'd really like to know. Seriously. How could you possibly screw things up worse as far as fighting terrorism goes?

I'm fine with you arguing that Bush is attacking Iraq for other reasons and very much DESPITE the effects it will obviously have on terrorism, but this idea that it has something to do with fighting terrorism is idiotic.

Sean-Paul, you say, ". . . this administration will do the same thing in Iraq it did in Afghanistan." Then how can you still support the war?

Dear Sean-Paul,
After a brilliant analysis of the meritritious, cynical, mendacious motives of the GWB White House towards Iraq, and its terrifying transformation of the US into a rogue state, you then FAVOR it???!!! I [almost] fell out of my chair with astonishment. Now I know what Socrates was thinking when he decided to take the hemlock--the offer of assisted escape notwithstanding. Can I start calling Bush "Alcibiades"?