2. I refuse to wait until the other side strikes first, when it comes to nuclear weapons. That was okay in during the Cold War, when mutually assured destruction kept everyone's fingers off the trigger. When dealing with the terrorists, however, we are in a whole new world, because they don't care who or what we hit in retaliation. All they care about is killing lots of us.
3. How is it that you think that Iraq is worse off than before Saddam? The Kurds certainly aren't. Most of the country is far better off. Baghdad is a violent cesspool, but I imagine that will be cleaned up within the year.
4. The misery of the Iraqis wouldn't have ended with Saddam's death. Besides his too evil sons, there were plenty of generals like Chemical ALi who were ready to take over. The misery would have continued.
As far as the misery in the world, no, we don't have the resources to take on all of it. But when the source of misery is also a threat to the safety of a good portion of the world, I don't see what else is to be done.
In an age of radicals trying to get nuclear weapons, I don't think waiting until we are 100% certain is the best policy, especially since the event that might convince us is the detonation of a nuke in a major American city.
That would be one of the more optimistic assessments I've heard recently. Even the President himself refuses to give a timeline. I notice you didn't mention our Christian brothers and sisters. Have you seen what's been happening to them? Many are fleeing the country. According to one of the bishops, half of Iraqi Christians have fled since 2003. Those remaining are congregating in enclaves for protection. Nothing that results in an increased suffering of Christians is ever a step forward. "Liberating" Muslims at the expense of Christian suffering is not an exercise in which America ought to be involved, in my opinion.
The Baker-Hamilton report was succinct. "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.
I doubt if anyone knows where Iraq will be in one year.