The other problem is that it is very hard to figured out how much the invasion itself was a bad idea, and how much of our current problem stems from the poor management of the war. If the war had been properly managed for the past 4 years, would we be in the position we are right now? Right now we are praying that General Petraus can pull off a miracle with the extra troops that we should have sent over 3 years ago (along with plenty others) We could have had a much larger force early on because guys wouldn’t have been exhausted from having already done 3 or 4 tours. That can’t possibly be a good thing.

“U.S. Senator Jim DeMint guest-posted yesterday at Powerline, summarizing and endorsing Gen. Petraeus’s view of Iraq. I’m especially struck by this:

‘He told us that al Qaeda senior leadership considers Iraq the central front in its radical Islamic terror war against the United States. Failure, said Petraeus, “would be an enormous shot of adrenaline in the arm of international jihadists.’”

So the main consequence of a U.S. withdrawal is not any concrete harm to ourselves, but the encouragement of our enemies. Having stupidly planted ourselves in Iraq for the chimerical purpose of building a democracy there, we must stay there in order to avoid a symbolic defeat and damage to our image.

Of course the al Qaeda victory would not just be symbolic. A constantly reiterated warning from the administration is that in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal al Qaeda would take over Iraq.

But, as Randall Parker writes at ParaPundit, this is a false alarm:

‘The foreign fighters who proclaim they are Al Qaeda forces (like replica watches using brand names), being Arab Sunnis, want the Arab Sunnis to regain power and see the Arab Shias as enemies. The Arab Shias are the clear majority of Iraqis and the Arab Sunnis are up against the Arab Shias and the Kurds. The Al Qaeda Sunni threat to continued Shia and Kurdish control is small. The Sunnis are getting steadily purged out of Baghdad, cementing Shia control of the “national” (using the term loosely here) government.’

If not al Qaeda and the Sunnis, what then is the threat? Certainly if the U.S. withdrew there would be a resurgence in the sectarian violence that the surge has tamped down, particularly violence against the Sunni minority by the Shi’ite-dominated government, which, in the absence of the U.S., would feel free to manifest its partisan Shi’ite nature. Also, it’s likely that Shi’ite Iran would gain increased influence, perhaps effective hegemony, over Shi’ite majority Iraq. All of which is very different from saying that al Qaeda would take over Iraq.

On the other hand, assuming that at some point we did succeed in reducing violence in Iraq enough to hand the job of maintaining order over to the Iraqis and withdraw our forces, what would happen then? Iraq’s Shi’ite-dominated government would, of its own accord, move to much closer relations with Shi’ite Iran. Thus the “success” of the Bush policy, the “victory” in Iraq for which all patriotic Americans long, would produce a Shi’ite dominated Iraq in which Iran would be, at the least, very influential. Which is the same thing that we fear from a “failure” and a “defeat” in Iraq.

What am I missing here?”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg18sep18,0,6583630.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

The problem is that the national media loves to give attention to this fringe element on the right to make all conservatives look bad (this explains why probably the least likable figures in the media like Buchanan and Novak are often represent the conservative side).

And Eliezer, I’m not jumping on any bandwagon. I was opposed to the Iraq invasion since day one.

As for our reasons for going into Iraq it is obvious that some of my conservative brethren have fallen for the lefts continuous drumbeat on WMD’s. Because the UN resolutions were all about WMDs. How soon you forget President Bush and Colin Powell in 2002 addressing the UN on each of the 17 UN resolutions Iraq violated, specifically UNSCRs 687, 707, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1284.

Each detailed Iraq’s failure to comply with weapons inspections. 11 times Iraq failed to comply that they disarmed and here’s the part most forget, they had to prove that they did disarm. They didn’t. Forget that every major intelligence agency thought he had WMD’s, or the fact Saddam thought he had them. He ordered chemical weapons to be used shortly before Baghdad fell. His troops failed to follow his order because they didn’t have any. I am not even going to get into The Russsians and their suspicious convoys into Syria days before the attack.

This reminds me of a bit from an old Robin Williams routine where he describes how unarmed British bobbies deal with robbers: “Stop! Or I’ll say ’stop’ again!”. How many times do you tell them to stop before you go in and kick some ass?

The bottom line is we have a concerted effort by the media and the left to derail the President at any cost even to the detriment of the county.

I am not a Bush apologist, far from it. But facts are facts.

Sam points out that the indisputable fact that Greenspan has always been highly regarded by people on both sides of the aisle. However, since McCarthy is just a Republican hack, Greenspan is suddenly “off his rocker” as soon as he says something that doesn’t toe the Republican party line. Go over to Ann Coulter’s webpage where you belong.

For every reason there was to go into Afghanistan on Septmber 10, 2001, there was a reason to go into Iraq, in addition to the fact that Saddam had the desire and capability to eventually develop nuclear weapons.

It might be attractive to jump on the bandwagon now, but to me it just seems to soon to resort to such foolishness and forget about what happens when you do nothing to stop evil (ex. the day after September 10, 2001).