It's become evident that the WMDs do exist and that iraqi ties to al qaeda did extensively exist (I can make a good case from a variety of links that there was a definite Saddam/Al Qaeda link, and I can make a reasonable case for a Saddam/binLaden link.) This corners the opposition in terms of their prior claims, but it opens the brilliant strategy of claiming that (1) Under Clinton they were contained in Iraq, and (2)The war (Pres. Bush) has CAUSED their proliferation.
I am impressed, and it will be an effective strategy to some degree.
The response: Pretend to be the President making a risk assessment-
1. Damned if I do and damned if I don't. I do nothing and they get handed off to terrorists. I start a war and they get hidden and channeled to terrorists. In either case they get into the hands of terrorists.
2. Major Advantage of War: I get to kill the body that's supporting the head. With the supporters of terrorism gone, then the likelihood of their following through with significant attacks launched from an entire world that's hostile territory is far less than from the confines of host terrorist nations.
The above is a reasonable evaluation, imo, of a proper response to the charge that the war caused the proliferation.
The problem right now is HUGE. They have stopped the war on terror in order to rebuild Iraq. Perhaps Iraq should eventually be rebuilt, but only after all the terrorist host nations are gone. They are not.
We MUST:
1. Conquer Syria. Period...there is no other answer.
2. Conquer Iran. Their nuclear program and their harboring of terrorists for years (they are actually the MAJOR terrorist nation....not Iraq) makes them a necessary conquest.
3. Overthrow Saudi.
4. Defeat Musharraff's enemies in Pakistan in detail, and then turn against any mountain taliban/al qaeda.
5. Fully support Putin in the muslim provinces of the former soviet -- Chechnya, Khazastan, etc.
6. Same #4 in Philippines and Indonesia.
When the war is done, then we can turn back to some level of "rebuilding" stage. To the extent that we rebuild the capacity for trade we help ourselves. That same logic entailed with Europe after WWII.
I think you and I both know that this would be (will be) a bull-crap argument.
Saddam was (probably) involved in the 1993 WTC bombing, (most likely) provided training for the 2001 WTC attacks, and wasn't building WMD's for another losing Conventional War against Iran... but rather for Asymmetrical Terrorist and Proliferation Warfare against the USA.
I've read both the "Pro-War" and "Anti-War" sources, and have come to the conclusion that the above (bolded paragraph) is probably closest to the Truth. Or, at least, close enough for Government Work.
I do, still, wish we had attempted Assassination and Regime Destablization first -- prior to outright War (as I said before: "Go Ehud [see Judges 3]! That great, Biblical example of Ethically-Christian, no-collateral-damage, Assassination.")
The problem right now is HUGE. They have stopped the war on terror in order to rebuild Iraq. Perhaps Iraq should eventually be rebuilt, but only after all the terrorist host nations are gone. They are not. We MUST: 1. Conquer Syria. Period...there is no other answer. 2. Conquer Iran. Their nuclear program and their harboring of terrorists for years (they are actually the MAJOR terrorist nation....not Iraq) makes them a necessary conquest. 3. Overthrow Saudi. 4. Defeat Musharraff's enemies in Pakistan in detail, and then turn against any mountain taliban/al qaeda. 5. Fully support Putin in the muslim provinces of the former soviet -- Chechnya, Khazastan, etc. 6. Same #4 in Philippines and Indonesia.
Your program for a "World War II style Victory" will require at least $500 Billion which has already been earmarked by Bush for the Kennedy Education Bill, Farm Subsidies, and Rebuilding Iraq.
The Money is there (we're already running a $500 Billion dollar deficit, anyway), if you can pry it from the Pork-Barrels into which it is already sunk.
I doubt this will happen.
I continue to think another option might work, also -- Get Out. Spend a few Tens of Billions developing the Canadian Oil Sands (more Oil than Saudi Arabia) and tell the Middle East: "We don't want, or need, you anymore. 'Great Satan'? Hardly -- We're now the 'Great Irrelevance' on the other side of the World, with no interest in you whatsoever. Why don't you get back to killing eachother again, and knock on our door in another 1,000 years when you've decided which one of y'all are the 'True Muslims'?"
However, this won't happen, either.
My own expectation is that political inertia will reign, and we will build a few basis in Iraq, support a local "Puppet Government" as riddled with Anti-Americanists as that of our "friends" the Saudis, and remain neck-deep in a snake-pit which costs us far more Blood and Treasure than it delivers to us in Oil.
Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Oh, admittedly, there is the possibility that Iraq might develop into the "Lady Liberty of the Middle East".
I rate this about as likely as the 65% Shi'ite Population of Iraq voluntarily giving up their tradition of beating their own heads with swords.