The vast majority of posts about the Iraq situation seems to be those of us who see it as a massive screw up at best, and a series of lies at worst. Those that feel that way have gone to great lengths to illustrate why we feel that way, giving examples of some, if not all, of the many things that have turned out badly. I think it is time that those who say we are wrong to explain why they feel we are wrong. Without bringing up long discredited reasons, please explain why things are not screwed up in Iraq. We all know that the religious theocracy that will almost certainly replace Saddam's dictatorship is not what the US had planned, and, in fact, runs counter to US interests. We all know that Iraq's infrastructure is in worse shape than when we invaded, with many cities having more hours per day without electricity than with electricity. We all know that bombings in Iraq are increasing, that many Iraqis are afraid to leave their own neighborhoods. We all know that the occupying forces (read the US) do not control most of the country, and, in fact do not even control most of Baghdad. Please explain why "the best trained and best equipped" military in the world cannot, after more than three years, control more than just a small area in the largest city in a country whose army was totally destroyed. Please explain.

On the 'good news' front, large parts of those areas which are predominantly Shia or Kurd don't have the same levels of daily violence as the 'Sunni triangle'. Maybe that's good news - or maybe it's just evidence of Balkanisation, including 'ethnic cleansing'.

There is a kind of democraticaly elected government. The Sunni and the Kurds won't work with its prime-minister (whom the US is urging to step down), and much of the country is actually under control of militias and religious fundamentalists, but there is a nominal government.

Lots of people are joining the police or army. This is maybe because there is no other way to scrape a living. Of course in some cases, local militias loyal to a religious nutcase or warlord have simply been re-uniformed and designated 'the army' or 'the police', but people are joining up.

DG, I really don’t feel like going into depth on this and to answer it properly requires quite a bit of depth.

To summarize, the invasion of Iraq was approved by Congress and had the initial support of the majority of the American population. (I was not amongst that group) The intelligence was gathered over several administrations so I don’t blame President Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush on its accuracy. They all saw the reports and were behind this invasion.

Militarily the invasion of Iraq was a huge success for a second time. Iraq’s standing army was all but obliterated in short time. I do blame the current administration for not having common sense enough to know what would happen after Iraq’s military was destroyed.

Problem with most people is that they think wars can be won and are “all over” just like they were in World War I and World War II. Unfortunately the agreements at the end of World War I had a big impact on causing World War II.

Lessons of America’s Vietnam War and the Soviet war in Afghanistan were not heeded and this war was expected to be won and done in a couple of years. Having spent a good amount of time in the Middle East myself and talking with and getting to know some locals I knew this war would last years, and years, and years, and cause thousands upon thousands of people to die.

Those that supported this war initially now see a mess and want it fixed immediately. I really don’t believe that is possible.

"To summarize, the invasion of Iraq was approved by Congress and had the initial support of the majority of the American population. (I was not amongst that group) The intelligence was gathered over several administrations so I don’t blame President Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush on its accuracy. They all saw the reports and were behind this invasion."

I agree with your first sentence. However, I think that this administration "cherry-picked" facts to make its case, ignoring and suppressing information that would have caused many to not go along with what the administration wanted.

I agree with everything else you say, except that I don't think the mess can be fixed at all. Since I don't think it can be fixed, I don't think we should stay any longer than it takes to pack up.

Oh, wait, maybe things are not so good in the South:

'An internal US embassy report on security in Iraq concluded that the situation in the southern city of Basra is every bit as bad as it is in cities further north.

Once considered a "safe zone", the oil-rich governorate is increasingly dangerous for its citizens and the British troops guarding it.


Iraqi interpreters wear balaclavas to avoid being identified by the police


Businessman Mohammad Hassan was driving to a party in Basra with a colleague when they were stopped by two policemen and hauled out of their car.

Mohammad was taken to what he was told was the ministry of information, strung up with his arms above his head and beaten for four hours.

He says there was no reason for it and that he is lucky to be alive.

The US report, leaked to the New York Times, concluded there was "a high level of militia activity including infiltration of local security forces" in the city. "Smuggling and criminal activity continues unabated," it added.

The fear of being snatched off the streets weighs heavily on people in Basra.

The armed militias which operate in the area are volatile and, to many citizens, the police are not much better.' news.bbc.co.uk

(Or is there 'internal memo bias' on Iraq, too?)

Nor is it just about having bad intelligence, everyone believed it, etc, or can it be used as an argument in favor of success that we vanquished Saddam's army, such as it was. First, it was an empty shell and second, vanishing to fight an insurgency was, according to much recent info, Saddam's plan for his army.

The questions about Iraq are: 1) what was hoped to be accomplished? 2) was it reasonable to expect that it could be accomplished? 3) is it being accomplished? 4) can it ever be accomplished?

I think it's pretty clear it was never really about WMD -- it was a (messianic) vision of planting and spreading democracy throughout the mideast. Clearly it hasn't been accomplished, nor was there a credible plan to make it happen, beyond the invasion. Was it a reasonable idea? Well, in the most abstract of abstract. There's plenty of evidence that insurgency and sectarian violence with their attendant breakdown of civil society was predictable and wasn't planned for. Can it be fixed? I suppose it's not impossible. It just looks that way. More importantly, if spreading democracy was indeed the goal, might it have happened with less cost, human and otherwise, if it had been allowed to happen "naturally," as happened in the Soviet Union, for example? Might an uprising from within been the most desirable and durable seed? Given the fact that, despite the "intelligence" there were inspectors there finding nothing, what was the hurry?

I think by all measures, even if the goal was lofty, it's been the worst screwup by any president ever, and has the most disastrous potential. At best, it'll take generations, here and there, to recover from the debacle. At worst, it'll drag us all into oblivion. Have a nice day.