[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

He was funding Palestinian suicide bombers against an American ally(Israel, war by proxy). He was flaunting the UN inspections regime. Iraq was a source of instability in the region of the world where Islamic terrorism flourishes. It's not difficult to imagine how the impact of allowing a regime like that to continue to exist promotes terrorism, and how removing it can diminish it.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. One harbors bin Laden and has allowed nuclear secrets and equipment to be sold on the black market. The other is the major source of funding (from individuals) for Al Qaeda as well as many of their leaders and foot soldiers.

The "Saddam was a bad man, we had to take him out" argument has long ago been shown not to hold water. We invaded Iraq because George Bush and his neocon cronies wanted to. No more, no less.

Moreover, I would say that the fact that most civilized nations of the world today stand openly against the idea that states who sponsor terrorism should be confronted by whatever means necessary indicates that unilateral action will often be the only reasonable course of action.

No, it means that most states understand risk vs. reward. Invading Afghanistan? Good risk vs. reward. Invading Iraq? Lousy risk vs. reward.

Invading Afghanistan? The Taliban & Al Qaeda are broken up and forced on the run, getting their just desserts. Until we abandon the project and invade Iraq. Invading Iraq? We get rid of a significant Al-Qaeda counter and a significant Iran counter in the heart of the Middle East and replace it with a terrorist training ground and a likely theocratic Shia state in the future.

The other alternatives are to (1) Deny that we have been in a state of war against Islamic terrorism for quite some time now(decades), or (2) Pre-emptively adopt a policy of surrender in that war on any front in which the world community is not willing to act.

The scope of international endeavor very rarely boils down to 2 or 3 choices. It doesn't with terrorism, either.

Ridiculous. Bolton was plenty qualified for the job and had experience dealing with the UN.

When you send someone to the UN who says this: "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" and has as his explicit goal the dismantling of the UN, what exactly are you saying to the international community?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Really? Then why is it that poll after poll before the Iraq War in England, France, Germany etc. indicated that the public in those countries did not support the war no matter what -- i.e., even if Saddam was doing everything we thought he might be doing?

You're misconstruing the polls. Many Europeans were skeptical of the WMD claim, which is a pretty big part of not believing a foray into Iraq was a good thing. Turns out they were right.

There is only one course of action that satisfies this condition. Total withdrawal from any involvement in international affairs.

Again, international affairs are not that simple. The world is not black-and-white. There are a multitude of options open to any reasonable state.

Foreign policy does not boil down to "We shoot them or we run away".

No it wasn't. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were continuously escalating, not decreasing in the time period prior to 2002.

And terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and proxies have continued to escalate since 2002 (so much so that the Bush Administration directed the State Department to stop keeping data on this).

Just a few weeks ago, General Petraeus, of all people, echoed the conclusion of the combined intelligence agencies in saying that invading Iraq has made the U.S. less safe, not more so.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A lot of things constitute dealing with terrorism, but certainly a definition of that must include confronting it wherever it is found.

I'm sorry, was anyone suggesting otherwise? I don't remember this.

I think it's clear that the rolls of Al Qaida would have increased regardless of our involvement in Iraq. They certainly weren't going away if we'd stopped at Afghanistan.

Such revisionist history. Al Qaeda was very much on the run after 9/11 and the goodwill we had in the international community was allowing us to go after their support lines in many other countries. The Iraq war changed all that, and has made it much more difficult to pursue Al Qaeda through these avenues.

Every idea I've heard has boiled down to either taking action to deprive them of safe havens or acting only when the world community is on our side, and I've already expressed what I think about that one.

Every idea doesn't "boil down" to this. That's your own simplistic conclusion. The reality is far more nuanced, and you're still not seeing this.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Brian: If you see Iraq as a great success story we'll never be able to agree. Have fun.

++