[rmnunez]

So are you saying by having the foresight to NOT invade Iraq under weak or nonexistent provocation is somehow conceding ANYTHING to the "terrorists"?

No, I noted intervention in Iraq was an expansion of the effort against terrorism. I don't think the intent behind intervention in Iraq was initially aimed at terrorism erradication. I suspect they saw it could be a great way to do some terrorism interdiction, but may not have grasped the 'draw' military occupation would have on international terrorism.

Are you saying Bush's policy in Iraq is anything OTHER than a collosal screwup?

Not a screwup, but pretty close. Intervention in Iraq was an expansion on a soundly premised global effort against international terrorism. International terrorism has been promoted as a consequence of intervention, but this has been concentrated there and directed at the military.

There is an actual problem with international terrorism. The US and its interests are threatened and harmed by international terrorism, which is a threat to international peace and security. Intervention in Afghanistan was an effective first step at the erradication of terrorism. Terrorists dispersed and reacted, but overall it was a successful action.

Then Bush started saber-rattling and Saddam was called on account. A slew of intelligent and soundly premised arguments existed to bully Saddam. All these justifications seem compelling to me, but the most persuasive to Bush was the WMD threat and this was his 'pitch'. The terrorist ties claim wasn't well substantiated and withdrawn, the WMD claim challenged and inspections frustrated. The humanitarian justification wasn't seen as persuasive (though it seems intelligence on the magnitude of this was weak too).

Intervention in Iraq has focused some international terrorism there and this may be an advantage in a strategic sense.

Would some different approach be better? How would a failure to intervene in Iraq affect the way things could be? Would Blix et al. have offered conclusive evidence satisfactory to even Bush by now or would he take as long as Saddam had steadfastedly frustrated the Security Council's prior efforts? I think its a genuine tossup, I'm sure Saddam could have continued obfuscating, the US gathering faulty intelligence and the EUros shipping expensive machinery for a few more years. I suppose eventually Saddam's WMD pursuits could produce something, perhaps by now absent intervention.

What would things be like today if the US military had never intervened in Iraq and were exclusively engaged in Afghanistan or at home? Does what you think things would be like take into account we would be three or four years into Bush's assertion there were WMDs in Iraq and probably no closer to learning the truth than at the outset?

I think intervention against Saddam was necessary at least in part because Bush couldn't be challenged in his demands for strict compliance from Saddam. Continued uncertainty over the WMDs by now would be seen as a clear weakness, particulary by other Muslims involved in international terrorism. I also think it was only a matter of time before those WMDs fell into terrorist hands.