Iraq = Vietnam

[KrustyKidd]

Should the United States send 20,000 more troops to stabilize Iraq as John McCain suggests?

I don't know and either do any of us here on this board. McCain might have more knowledge of the situation, capabilities and political scene than we do, but certainly less than the President or Rumsfeld. Certtainly more troops would help in one way but, would do little to push the Iraqi government to take more responsibility therefore, the call is for those who are political and military with access to both inside worlds.

I am of the second thought. WITHDRAW, and let the chip fall where they may.

Withdraw when? Now, this second?

[jdobbin]

I don't know and either do any of us here on this board. McCain might have more knowledge of the situation, capabilities and political scene than we do, but certainly less than the President or Rumsfeld. Certtainly more troops would help in one way but, would do little to push the Iraqi government to take more responsibility therefore, the call is for those who are political and military with access to both inside worlds.

Since McCain will be running for office in several months time, it is probably pertinent to see if he gains traction with his demand for more troops.

One thing is clear, Bush is trying to find something positive to present on the Iraq front. It has been a rough month for the country.

[ft.niagara]

Withdraw when? Now, this second?

Yes this very second. Why should American soldiers die for someone else's civil war? They did not sign on for that. The oath to defend and protect the constitution of the US is just that. The oath goes both ways, as in like a contract. They did not sign on to defend and protect the constitution of Iraq.

[KrustyKidd]

Why should American soldiers die for someone else's civil war? They did not sign on for that. The oath to defend and protect the constitution of the US is just that. The oath goes both ways, as in like a contract. They did not sign on to defend and protect the constitution of Iraq.

The Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

So if Iraq is considered by the present administration to be of concern enogh to send troops there to fight, then it is their duty to obey the orders of the President and defend another's constitution.

Yes this very second.

Not too bright for the long term peace of the region and, given it's importence to the world, the peace of same. To leave Iraq, which is extremely strategic to the region would set in motion a prize to be fought for by the three main players of the region. All of which seek regional hedgemony. Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, Shiite Islam in Iran and Wahhabist Jihadists trying to recreate the old Caliphate. If any one of them gain power in Iraq, they pretty much have the entire region sewed up with repercussions being global within the lifetime of our children.

In any case, none of them would be permitted by any administration to take over as the tipping of the balance of power would create an Islamic super state that would would control a good part of the oil resources of the planet. This potential imbalance would draw every power in the world to take a side with the resulting fight a possible world war in which millions would die.

[Riverwind]

Not too bright for the long term peace of the region and, given it's importence to the world, the peace of same.

If that was a concern then the US should have patched things up with Saddam. He was a useful bulwark against the Islamists.

To leave Iraq, which is extremely strategic to the region would set in motion a prize to be fought for by the three main players of the region. All of which seek regional hedgemony.

It is happening anyways. The US is powerless to change anything.

In any case, none of them would be permitted by any administration to take over as the tipping of the balance of power would create an Islamic super state that would would control a good part of the oil resources of the planet.

Life is not a hollywood movie. Any power strong enough to unite all of those warring factions will be desperate for revenue that oil would provide. They will sell as much as possible to whoever has the cash. These countries are primitive backwaters that have no source of foreign currency other than oil they will have no choice.

[KrustyKidd]

If that was a concern then the US should have patched things up with Saddam. He was a useful bulwark against the Islamists.

That was on my list of possibilities as it would have been the easiest and, surest way to solve the immediate problem - Iraq/Iran and the local region. However, it would have done little to set up a long term stoppage against radical Islam/Jihadist mentality or Islamofacisim as democracy is their enemy and they thrieve under rep[pressive conditions.

It is happening anyways. The US is powerless to change anything.

Iranian troops in Baghdad fighting Saudi forces? I must be missing something in the news.

Life is not a hollywood movie. Any power strong enough to unite all of those warring factions will be desperate for revenue that oil would provide. They will sell as much as possible to whoever has the cash. These countries are primitive backwaters that have no source of foreign currency other than oil they will have no choice.

Any power that can unite those factions under whatever rule can write their own ticket and would have lots of choices to whom to sell to.

[Riverwind]

Any power that can unite those factions under whatever rule can write their own ticket and would have lots of choices to whom to sell to.

It does not make a difference who the saudis or the iraqis sell their oil to as long as it goes on the world market. If China and India buy their oil then the US can buy Russian and Nigerian oil. The world price of oil is not going to change.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that we citizens of the west need to take a few steps back from the edge for a minute and think about what it is that we desire to accomplish. From my point of view we need to clean up our own act before we start telling anybody else how to live. Its not as if we don't have poverty closer to home to deal with. We have crime problems too, and you may have noticed a few corrupt politicians over here as well. We are not perfect yet we try to make it look as if we are so much better than others.

To each their own and to each other with respect. There is a line worth thinking about. Cultures differ amongst the citizens of this earth, and we need to be mindful of those differences and take them into account in our relationships with each other. History has taught harsh lessons to those who believed that they could create beneficial change by imposing a version of morality not indigenious to specific citizens.

We need to look back and see where we have gone, and recognize what harm we have caused by our actions. Iraq should be a university degree to politicians, but I fear they will not achieve a passing grade in the judgement of historical recollections.

[KrustyKidd]

It does not make a difference who the saudis or the iraqis sell their oil to as long as it goes on the world market. If China and India buy their oil then the US can buy Russian and Nigerian oil. The world price of oil is not going to change.

Good point. That is the status quo as it stands now. When one party owns twice as much as they do it changes the equation. That's what I speak of.

I think that we citizens of the west need to take a few steps back from the edge for a minute and think about what it is that we desire to accomplish. From my point of view we need to clean up our own act before we start telling anybody else how to live.

Exactly. That's why we should do everything in our power to ensure that countries such as Iraq get to hold elections and allow the people themselves to decide rather than armed groups of terrorists and insurgents trying to impose their will on the majority.

Cultures differ amongst the citizens of this earth, and we need to be mindful of those differences and take them into account in our relationships with each other. History has taught harsh lessons to those who believed that they could create beneficial change by imposing a version of morality not indigenious to specific citizens.

So then Saddam's torture was the way to go. You must be an extreme right winger for sure.

Iraq should be a university degree to politicians, but I fear they will not achieve a passing grade in the judgement of historical recollections.

People living under state sponsored terror, invading countries to pay the bank roll. Yes, extreme right wing for sure. Glad to know you, but, am afraid that myself am a bit more liberal than you as I believe in democracy and people having a choice in their lives, rather than having it imosed on them by force sorry to say.

[M.Dancer]

For a lot of reasons that I listed here. There are probably more.

Should the United States send 20,000 more troops to stabilize Iraq as John McCain suggests?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446757/

No, absolutely no.

They should send 200,000 more. Any less would be a complete and utter waste of lives and time.

[August1991]

With Bush's latest quote comparing Vietnam and Iraq (not new if you look above in this thread), I thought I'd resurrect this thread.

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam," Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent victims, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms, like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields.' "

...

Said Bush: "In an interview with a Pakistani paper after the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden declared that 'the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today.' His No. 2 man, [Ayman al-] Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam . . . declaring that the Americans 'know better than others that there is no hope in victory.' The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet.

"Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility," said Bush, "but the terrorists see things differently."

...

Bush pledged to the VFW that "as long as I am commander in chief, we will fight to win." But that pledge will be increasingly difficult to keep, given the bitterly partisan Democratic majority in Congress.

New York Post

"The violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese or the Soviet communists were of theirs," said Bush.

"They are destined for the same fate."

...

Bush acknowledged mistakes in the running of the war, but said withdrawal now would be catastrophic. "If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened and use their victory to gain new recruits.

"As we saw on Sept. 11, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities," he warned.

"Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home," he said. "That is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America."

Bush applauded the older generations of warriors he was addressing and wondered if today's generation of Americans would "resist the allure of retreat."

"That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson," he said. "There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children."

New York Post

I also found this point above interesting:

I think that the comparison between VietNam and Iraq is that there is a civil war going on. In Iraq the civil war started when that Golden Mosque was bombed, which was its intent. In Viet Nam, the north wanted a unified country, more than the south wanted their independence. The US could not stop a civil war, especially when the north was well supplied. In the case of Iraq, the US can not stop a civil war, especially when the sides are well supplied. The US wins every battle, but can not win an endless war when blood is no object. The US can only propup a government so long. The US did not loose in Viet Nam, the south VietNamese did not want democracy enough. In the same way, if Iraq does not stabilize, THEY do not want democracy enough. In that way, Iraq is like Viet Nam, IMO.

On the surface, both the Vietnam and Iraq wars appear to be civil wars. In the case of Vietnam however, the war was a proxy battle in the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union. America didn't win that battle but it fought long enough and hard enough in Vietnam to show the Soviets that America was not a pushover.

The Iraq war has become a sectarian battle but it also now involves a proxy war between America and Islamist militants. Black Dog above suggests that these militants just don't pose a serious threat to western civilization. I don't know.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq, I thought at the time that putting 100,000 US soldiers into a messy country like Iraq will not lead to any good. (I imagined what would happen if US soldiers were to occupy a city like Montreal or, to make a better comparison, Beirut. This would just exacerbate any sectarian differences as people seek to settle scores or curry favour.)

Nevertheless, having invaded Iraq, the US must prevail or make every effort to prevail. If the US were to withdraw now, I think it's likely that Iraq will become another theocratic Shia state allied with Iran. In some ways though, the US has made its point. Saddam is no more and the US has made every effort to let Iraq form a functioning government. Maybe it's time for Iraqis to sort out their differences their own way and Iraqi Sunnis to accept their minority status. At most, the US will have to hope that Iraq does not become a place that will openly foster anti-American militants.

Edited August 26, 2007 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Nevertheless, having invaded Iraq, the US must prevail or make every effort to prevail. If the US were to withdraw now, I think it's likely that Iraq will become another theocratic Shia state allied with Iran. In some ways though, the US has made its point. Saddam is no more and the US has made every effort to let Iraq form a functioning government. Maybe it's time for Iraqis to sort out their differences their own way and Iraqi Sunnis to accept their minority status. At most, the US will have to hope that Iraq does not become a place that will openly foster anti-American militants.

Agreed, except that the US has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq a la Vietnam. Iraq has occupied front stage in American foreign policy since 1991 and the blessed UN adventure to free gold plated Kuwait. If it has become a roach motel for Al Qaeda, all the better. Though there will be much political posturing during the run up to 2008 elections, the US will remain engaged in the region for a long time, albeit at lower force levels.

[Riverwind]

Nevertheless, having invaded Iraq, the US must prevail or make every effort to prevail. If the US were to withdraw now, I think it's likely that Iraq will become another theocratic Shia state allied with Iran.

You are assuming that the US has the power to prevent this from happening. The continued presence of US troops in Iraq is making things worse for Iraqis because any government propped up by the US will never be accepted by large segments of the Iraqi population. This prejudice against US puppet governments makes it impossible to build a stable government that is capable of maintaining order in the country.

The sooner the US leaves the better it will be for Iraqis - any blood shed is inevitable and unavoidable at this point. If Bush does not like it he should have thought of that before he invaded. If find it very ironic that someone who did not give a damn about civilian deaths 4 years ago seems to care so much about them now.

Another thing to consider: even if the US stabilized Iraq long enough to allow some sort of democratic state to rise. What will stop the majority of Iraqis from voting for an Iran like anti-American Shia state? The example of Russia demonstrates that democratic structures are no protection from a population that does not believe in democratic principles.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Nevertheless, having invaded Iraq, the US must prevail or make every effort to prevail. If the US were to withdraw now, I think it's likely that Iraq will become another theocratic Shia state allied with Iran. In some ways though, the US has made its point. Saddam is no more and the US has made every effort to let Iraq form a functioning government. Maybe it's time for Iraqis to sort out their differences their own way and Iraqi Sunnis to accept their minority status. At most, the US will have to hope that Iraq does not become a place that will openly foster anti-American militants.

The Iraqi government is in chaos and even Bush is losing patience. Half of Maliki's key government cabinet members have left him.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true

he government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki suffered another defection Saturday, and Iraqi politicians and disillusioned citizens joined the debate about whether he should be replaced with a more secular leader.

The sectarian violence that has helped drive Sunni Arabs and even some of Maliki's fellow Shiites to boycott the Cabinet continued to flare Saturday.

A car bomb exploded in Baghdad's working-class Kadhimiya neighborhood shortly after noon, killing seven people and wounding 30. The blast occurred as Shiite faithful began assembling for an annual pilgrimage to Karbala, 50 miles southwest of Baghdad, the capital. Authorities banned motorcycles, bikes and pushcarts from the streets to deter attacks on pilgrims, expected to number more than a million.

Everyone talks about how the surge is working in Baghdad. What they don't say regularly is that sectarian violence is killing people at double the rate of 2006.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/

This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month’s Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

Meanwhile, Bush's comparison to Vietnam is raising eyebrows among historians and other analysts.

Edited August 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[Higgly]

Give it up August. The train has left the station.

[kimmy]

At one time I was gullible enough to believe that the reasons for the second invasion of Iraq were as stated.

Since everybody (except those relying on NewsMax for their information, apparently) now knows that the "WMD intelligence" was fake and force-fed to the CIA from upstairs, and that "Al Qaeda's in Iraq! We gots ta git in there and git 'em!" was a bold-face lie, I'm finding the "they're fighting for freedom!" line awfully hard to swallow.

The real motive? The stuff Kuzadd talks about-- a permanent military presence in the region and the Carter Doctrine-- seems like a more believable motive than "WMDs!" or "Al Qaeda."

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The real motive? The stuff Kuzadd talks about-- a permanent military presence in the region and the Carter Doctrine-- seems like a more believable motive than "WMDs!" or "Al Qaeda."

Well I'm glad somebody has embraced the obvious. Such motives existed long before Bush or 9/11.

[August1991]

Meanwhile, Bush's comparison to Vietnam is raising eyebrows among historians and other analysts.

Depends whom you ask.

WHEN President George W Bush invoked the memory of Vietnam to justify staying in Iraq, he was drawing on a new wave of revisionist history which maintains that America did not lose the war, but the will to win.

“Three decades later there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam war and how we left,” Bush said in a speech to army veterans last week. White House insiders admitted it was a risky topic which had previously been left to the antiwar movement. Americans generally prefer to forget Indochina and remember who won the cold war.

Yet as the prospect of victory in Iraq has receded, the lessons of Vietnam have provoked intense discussion among historians and in current affairs magazines such as the neo-conservative Weekly Standard.

Bush has been quietly paying attention and had been thinking for months about the right moment to bring Vietnam into the debate, according to a White House official.

Timesonline

Then there's the inevitable response of Steyn:

George W. Bush gave a speech about Iraq last week, and in the middle of it he did something long overdue: He attempted to appropriate the left's most treasured all-purpose historical analogy. Indeed, Vietnam is so ubiquitous in the fulminations of politicians, academics and pundits that we could really use anti-trust legislation to protect us from shopworn historical precedents. But, in the absence thereof, the president has determined that we might at least learn the real "lessons of Vietnam."

"Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Aug. 22. "Many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people … . A columnist for the New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: 'It's difficult to imagine,' he said, 'how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.' A headline on that story, dateline Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: 'Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life.' The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be."

----

As I have stated umpteen times above, I think that Vietnam was a battle in a larger war just like the Dieppe invasion was a battle in a broader war. Iraq fits within a similar framework. Of these various battles, Vietnam was perhaps the more critical.

Steyn rightly makes the point that with hindsight, the US victory in the Cold War seems inevitable. That's not the case at all, anymore than the Allied victory in WWII was inevitable.

We take our freedoms too easily for granted.

The real motive? The stuff Kuzadd talks about-- a permanent military presence in the region and the Carter Doctrine-- seems like a more believable motive than "WMDs!" or "Al Qaeda."

If I recall, the Carter Doctrine referred to the threat of the Soviets obtaining an outlet on the Indian Ocean by first taking Afghanistan and then Pakistan. I'm not sure what it has to say about the situation now, and I have never given much attention to what Carter said or says. He's the Joe Clark of American politics.

As to a permanent presence in the region, the US has a base at Diego Garcia. It also has a trusted ally in Israel.

----

The Iraq invasion occurred after a series of attacks against US interests culminating in the spectacular attacks in September 2001. I have been to New York City on several occasions since then and the change in the skyline is something that affects Americans in a way that, frankly, I am surprised is not shared by more foreigners. Two large buildings are gone.

The US had to respond.

In addition, Blair made the very good case that it was inevitable that Saddam would share his knowledge of WMD with a terrorist group or another. The risk of this was simply too great not to respond when they did. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

For myself, I didn't agree with the invasion at the time but I can certainly understand why the US, UK and Australia acted as they did.

Edited August 27, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Depends whom you ask.

The Iraq invasion occurred after a series of attacks against US interests culminating in the spectacular attacks in September 2001. I have been to New York City on several occasions since then and the change in the skyline is something that affects Americans in a way that, frankly, I am surprised is not shared by more foreigners. Two large buildings are gone.

The US had to respond.

In addition, Blair made the very good case that it was inevitable that Saddam would share his knowledge of WMD with a terrorist group or another. The risk of this was simply too great not to respond when they did. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

For myself, I didn't agree with the invasion at the time but I can certainly understand why the US, UK and Australia acted as they did.

Iraq was not involved in the attack on New York no matter how many times the right wing suggests so.

Bush's Vietnam commentary leaves one to think that he is suggesting that the U.S. should have continued the war in Vietnam. It is the first that he has ever suggested such a thing. His words would have had more power if he had not done what so many rich Americans did: find a safe haven in the National Guard during the fight. I can't imagine that he would have been happy if Nixon had continued the war and sent his unit overseas.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush's Vietnam commentary leaves one to think that he is suggesting that the U.S. should have continued the war in Vietnam. It is the first that he has ever suggested such a thing. His words would have had more power if he had not done what so many rich Americans did: find a safe haven in the National Guard during the fight. I can't imagine that he would have been happy if Nixon had continued the war and sent his unit overseas.

Sorry, but you are misinformed about the timeline, Vietnam War deployments, and mission for F-102 fighter interceptor squadrons, including Air Guard units. President Bush type qualified in that aircraft, and it was hardly a "safe haven". Vice President Gore was far safer with a desk job in Saigon and shortened five month tour.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

[bush_cheney2004]

Iraq was not involved in the attack on New York no matter how many times the right wing suggests so.

Who is the "right wing"? Would that be the entire US Congress, who not only voted for war in 2002, but did so after voting to make the overthrow of Sadam's regime a matter of US Public Law in 1998. "Right Wing" Clinton promptly bombed Iraq.

[August1991]

Iraq was not involved in the attack on New York no matter how many times the right wing suggests so.

I for one never claimed that Iraq was involved in the September 2001 attacks, nor has there been any evidence presented confirming such a link. I happen to believe that it stretches credulity to say that Saddam or Assad never had any contact with bin Laden but I have no evidence for my belief. IIRC, Colin Powell did not justify the invasion of Iraq by reference to al-Qaeda.

And Dobbin, I am no more right wing than you are left wing.

Edited August 27, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I for one never claimed that Iraq was involved in the September 2001 attacks, nor has there been any evidence presented confirming such a link. I happen to believe that it stretches credulity to say that Saddam or Assad never had any contact with bin Laden but I have no evidence for my belief. IIRC, Colin Powell did not justify the invasion of Iraq by reference to al-Qaeda.

And Dobbin, I am no more right wing than you are left wing.

No, Powell advocated for the invasion based on inaccurate information about weapons of mass destruction and the imminent threat Iraq posed.

For quite some time, Republican led efforts kept connecting the attack of New York with Iraq. Even now, some continue to raise that spectre. A cowed Democratic party went along with it all and never asked the questions that needed to be asked.

The idea that Bush can even suggest that if only the Vietnam War had continued that peace would have eventually come to the far east is specious at best. If Bush had ever believed this to be true, he would have mentioned it earlier than this past week.

[bush_cheney2004]

For quite some time, Republican led efforts kept connecting the attack of New York with Iraq. Even now, some continue to raise that spectre. A cowed Democratic party went along with it all and never asked the questions that needed to be asked.

Patently false....many prominent Democrats in Congress specifically challenged the War Resolution, and many voted accordingly.

Your assertion is false, and doesn't recognize the reality of Republican control of the US Congress:

23 Senate Nays:

Akaka (D-HI)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Byrd (D-WV)

Chafee (R-RI)

Conrad (D-ND)

Corzine (D-NJ)

Dayton (D-MN)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Graham (D-FL)

Inouye (D-HI)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Reed (D-RI)

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Wellstone (D-MN)

Wyden (D-OR)

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Representatives in voting NAY.

Do you just make this stuff up on the fly?

[Black Dog]

The Iraq war has become a sectarian battle but it also now involves a proxy war between America and Islamist militants. Black Dog above suggests that these militants just don't pose a serious threat to western civilization. I don't know.

Well, August, it's impossible for us to know the real story on what's going on in Iraq. We simply can't trust most of the information we recieve. If anything, it should be obvious that the conventional wisdom (that is: that Iraq is a front in the war on terorism/Al Qaeda) is incorrect. The Al Qaeda angle is overblown, with foreigners representing but a small minority of insurgents and only a small number of Iraqis asserting any kind of AQ link (the veracity of such claims should naturally be regarded with some healthy skepticism). It's interesting that this counterintuitive narrative would become the dominant one, when the simpler explanation (that violence in Iraq is largely the result of domestic sectarian divisions, excrabated by the jockeying of various regional powers) is the one that makes the most sense. So, August, by looking at Iraq in the context of the "war on terror," you're looking at it all wrong.

The big hint can be found in bush_cheney2004's assertions that the current Iraq war is merely a continuation of longstanding U.S. policy, a policy started by Bush 1, upheld by Clinton, fumbled by Bush 2 and soon to be passed on to another president (Clinton 2?). It would also be useful to view Iraq in the context of the core guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy, which is to ensure the global primacy and, if necessary, hegemony of U.S. interests. The rest is window dressing.