... this one is dead, decomposed, and its bones turned to dust.

Whatever about Iraq being a "war of choice" versus Afghanistan being a "war of necessity," let me make one thing perfectly clear so that even you understand it: Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" because its government at the time, the execrable Taliban, harbored, aided and abetted the organization responsible for 9/11. That is why "...it meets every liberal criterion of being formally underwritten and endorsed and armed and reinforced by our NATO and U.N. allies." Indeed, the only time that NATO invoked its if-one-member-is-attacked-we-a­ll-are clause was in response to 9/11.

Iraq was a "war of choice" because BushCo *chose* to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, which had not attacked us, and which represented a threat in only the most fevered imaginations of the neoconmen. "Many of the al-Qaida forces—most notably the horrific but now deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—made their way to Iraq in the first place only after being forcibly evicted from Afghanistan" *because* we were in Iraq, our presence there acting as a rallying point for AQ and sympathizers.

As I've noted before, it's almost unbelievable that anyone in 2008 could still be peddling any of the mutliple threadbare "justifications" for war in Iraq. Unbelievable, that is, unless your name is Hitchens.

With respect, sir, get a grip.

It is only “dead and decomposed” if one has the assumption that 911 occurred in a vacuum and was but an isolated aberration. Those that support the war in Iraq believe that 911 was but one event within a larger movement against Western democracies perpetrated by nations and unaffiliated groups whom are not necessarily allies with one another, but share common goals and more importantly, a common enemy (the US and other Western democracies). This is not to say that we think (or ever thought) that Saddam had anything to do with 911 (Just as Hitler wasn’t responsible for drawing up the plans for Pearl Harbor. I know you will say that Germany and Japan were allies on paper, and that is all it was, on paper. Germany and Japan cooperated very little with each other.) Likewise, suppose Germany was not allied with Japan, would you argue that we should not have gone to war with Germany in following PH? Germany and Japan both had to be dealt with regardless of their affiliation to one another just as Iraq and Afghanistan both needed to be dealt with regardless of their affiliation. Saddam’s Iraq represented a state that was clearly of strategic importance in this conflict, (call it global terrorism if you like). Think about this, which will be a greater strategic victory for the US? Afghanistan or Iraq? Iraq, hands down. Both the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are necessary and both play an important role in the global conflict we face.

Split-S:

It is only “dead and decomposed” if one has the assumption that 911 occurred in a vacuum and was but an isolated aberration. Those that support the war in Iraq believe that 911 was but one event within a larger movement against Western democracies perpetrated by nations and unaffiliated groups whom are not necessarily allies with one another, but share common goals and more importantly, a common enemy (the US and other Western democracies). This is not to say that we think (or ever thought) that Saddam had anything to do with 911 (Just as Hitler wasn’t responsible for drawing up the plans for Pearl Harbor. I know you will say that Germany and Japan were allies on paper, and that is all it was, on paper. Germany and Japan cooperated very little with each other.) Likewise, suppose Germany was not allied with Japan, would you argue that we should not have gone to war with Germany in following PH? Germany and Japan both had to be dealt with regardless of their affiliation to one another just as Iraq and Afghanistan both needed to be dealt with regardless of their affiliation. Saddam’s Iraq represented a state that was clearly of strategic importance in this conflict, (call it global terrorism if you like). Think about this, which will be a greater strategic victory for the US? Afghanistan or Iraq? Iraq, hands down. Both the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are necessary and both play an important role in the global conflict we face.

9/11 did not, of course, occur in a vacuum, but the common thread was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. However, that did not suit the worldview nor plans of the neoconmen, and so a link, however tenuous, had to be established between 9/11 and Iraq. And whereas you may assert that "[t]his is not to say that we think (or ever thought) that Saddam had anything to do with 911," the constant refrain of "Saddam," "9/11" and "terr'ists" by Bush, Cheney, Faux News, et al, led a majority of Americans to believe that there *was* a connection between Iraq and 9/11, as intended. The ironic thing, in fact, was that Saddam was opposed to Islamists and just a much their target as Western countries. It wasn't until our ill-conceived invasion of Iraq that "terr'ists" gained any traction in that country. As for whatever "strategic victory" we might achieve in Iraq, that has to be weighed against the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, and the strengthening both of Iran and Islamists in the region (Pakistan, anyone?).

Oh, but it is a game. Everything is. Games like RISK were made based on the rich history of human conflict. We are not imitating RISK, RISK is an imitation, or a refection, if you will of human conflict.

“that Saddam was opposed to Islamists and just a much their target as Western countries.”

Split-S:

“that Saddam was opposed to Islamists and just a much their target as Western countries.”

So what? Nazi Germany hated the USSR more than Poland, yet he signed a treaty with the USSR to defeat Poland. How strange. The US hated the USSR and yet we sent them tones of weapons to fight the Nazis. Weird. As I said in the post above, the formal affiliations of Saddam, Bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are immaterial. The common link between them all is that they are enemies of the US, Israel and Western society. As per my example before, if Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had not signed a treaty before Pearl Harbor, would it not still be important to rid the world of both the Nazis and Imperial Japan? Whether Saddam claimed that he “hated” AQ is totally unimportant, just as a treaty between Japan and Germany would be unimportant. What is important in both cases is that they posed a threat to the world order and peace in general.

1. Who Saddam "claimed he 'hated'" is "immaterial." He actively suppressed Islamists in Iraq, and thus earned their ire.
2. Many countries are "enemies of the US, Israel and Western society." Why aren't we invading those countries?
3. Many countries pose "a threat to the world order and peace in general." Why aren't we invading those countries?

Your line of reasoning is similar to that used by BushCo after its invasion failed to turn up WMD: Saddam *wanted* WMD; Saddam *said* that he wanted WMD. In this case, intent is more important than reality. Well, the reality is, this war was and is a bust, and no amount of retrofitting justifications onto it after the fact is going to change that.

Well, as far as invading countries, we have to start somewhere, hopefully our victory in Iraq will make future invasions unnecessary. Saddam was given plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and chose not to do so. Again the fact that Saddam suppressed islamists in his own country, again is unimportant. So he suppressed those groups that threatened his own power, so what. Again, if he was attacking those groups that were outside his borders that threatened other countries (Isreal, US, UK etc.) or worked with the world community to stop islamist groups that would mean something, but he did not. As I said before the affiliations between these groups doesn’t matter, the fact that they openly oppose Western societies does. They may not get along (as Nazi-USSR pact, US alliance with USSR) but they have a common goal and a common enemy, it matters not that they are working together or individually on this goal.

Split-S:

Those that support the war in Iraq believe that 911 was but one event within a larger movement against Western democracies perpetrated by nations and unaffiliated groups whom are not necessarily allies with one another, but share common goals and more importantly, a common enemy (the US and other Western democracies).

That's laughable, considering the two countries that Saddam attacked before Desert Storm were Iran (a theocracy) and Kuwait (a monarchy). Sure, Iran was once a democracy, but the CIA took care of that with a coup back in the 1950s.

Split-S:

The common link between them all is that they are enemies of the US, Israel and Western society.

How exactly is that a "common link"? A common link is one thing, not three.

Split-S:

Well, as far as invading countries, we have to start somewhere, hopefully our victory in Iraq will make future invasions unnecessary.

Why? Because other nations would be so afraid of US invasion that they would roll over? I think that's called terrorism.

Split-S:

Well, as far as invading countries, we have to start somewhere, hopefully our victory in Iraq will make future invasions unnecessary. Saddam was given plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and chose not to do so. Again the fact that Saddam suppressed islamists in his own country, again is unimportant. So he suppressed those groups that threatened his own power, so what. Again, if he was attacking those groups that were outside his borders that threatened other countries (Isreal, US, UK etc.) or worked with the world community to stop islamist groups that would mean something, but he did not. As I said before the affiliations between these groups doesn’t matter, the fact that they openly oppose Western societies does. They may not get along (as Nazi-USSR pact, US alliance with USSR) but they have a common goal and a common enemy, it matters not that they are working together or individually on this goal.

1. How on earth do you define "victory in Iraq?" If the goalposts didn't keep moving, maybe we could figure out what the endgame was.
2. Both Sudan and Israel are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Should we gear up to invade those countries as well?
3. So now a country doesn't actually have to *attack* the US, it merely has to "openly oppose Western societies" in order for it to be a candidate for invasion? Again, what your talking about is *intent* rather than *action*, which is of course the broad brush the neoconmen would like to paint with.
   

1. I define victory in Iraq as rendering terrorist forces ineffective (the surge has almost accomplished that) and leaving Iraq as a free and friendly ally a la Israel. The definition is quite simple, really.

2. I’m all for cleaning up Sudan. Which UN resolutions has Israel violated? Besides, Israel is our friend and ally, they don’t threaten to blow up our citizens while they try and go to work.

3. Exactly! Small wars to prevent larger ones. Pre-emptive war would have saved countless lives in the 1940s, there is no telling how many this one has saved.