I'm so tired of this. Someone must have already pointed this out.

A key phrase in Hitchens' argument is this: "It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish."

The general context is his argument that regardless of the invasion of Iraq, Al Quaida was on its way, because Iraq was irrevocably headed towards failed state status.

But his argument creates a false choice between fighting a war right now, this second now NOW NOW and doing absolutely nothing, paying no attention to Iraq, and letting it fester. Surely there was a middle ground containment policy involving inspections, that while less than ideal, was better than starting a war, the most heavy-handed, brutal, and unpredicatble of all foreign policy choices.

Look at this statement again: "It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish." So war is the only way for the International community to pay attention to another country? This is a pretty simplisitic and naive stance, even from Htchens.

At least Hitchens was not stupid enough to foist the old Zarqawi was in Iraq to team up with Hussein argument. Yes its true Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion waiting for it to destabalize. But we gave him the greatest gift he could imagine by destabalizing it for him and creating some prime recruiting slogans for him (repel the ifidel invaders from America) which allowed the number of his followers to swell dramatically as young idiots largely from our old ally Saudi Arabia (where we seem to have forgotten both OBL and most of the 9/11 hijackers came from) poured into Iraq.

Unfortunately, Hitchens is correct about one thing. If we leave now and create a failed state situation in Iraq, we are inviting disaster on our heads. We have no choice, but to stay, even though its going to break our military. But for Hitchens, as a supporter of the war from the beginning to not take responsibility for the terrible decisions we made that led us to this sorry state, and to instead claim a failed state was almost certainly inevitable, is extreme intellectual cowardice.

Iraq, of all nations on the planet, was very much the focus of international attention. Iraq was under brutal UN sanctions, which the U.S. indicated numerous times that it would not ease until Saddam was gone. Iraq was also the center of constant debates at the UN, from Oil for Food to weapons inspections. Also, 2/3rds or so of Iraq was quarantined from Baghdad as so-called no-fly zones. The U.S. and Britian constantly patrolled these areas (as did the France, until 1998). The north, in particular, became a semi-autonomous region and is the area in which Zarqawi fled after he left Baghdad.

All of this weakened the Baathist regime and, as Hitchens rightly notes (unlike most that claimed Saddam was a threat) was on the verge of implosion. The U.S. further exacerbated the situation by invading without the wherewithal to establish order.

Hitchens is wrong about the U.S. leaving, though. As he rightly notes, many Iraqi Sunnis have taken arms against these foreign terrorists. What will likely happen, whether the U.S. stays or not, is that if Iraq tilts too far towards the Sunni control, Iran will continue to intervene (directly or indirectly). If Iraq leans too far to Shia control, which it likely will because of the Shia majority, Saudi Arabia will likely intervene (directly or indirectly). And the regional conflict that those of us that opposed the war from the start warned against will expand. Iraq is already a failed-state. The question is how much longer the U.S. will delude itself into believing it is establising a modicum of order in the country.

I don't disagree with this until your last point, about the US deluding itself that it is providing order.

It's eminently possible to imagine Iraq imploding even without the US invasion of 2002. But there would have been key differences.

There would have been no elections. Like it or not, Iraq's squabbling politicians are its best hope at national reconciliation.

There would have been no one to dissuade Iran and other neighbouring states from wholesale intervention in Iraq. This would probably have sparked a regional war, which may happen anyway.

And there would have been no one to stop the death squads from merging into genocidal armies.

There is a quick way to end the Iraq conflict. Allow Iran to arm the Shia to the teeth. Then let them annihalate the Sunni minority in revenge for Saddam's brutal Sunni dictatorship. This would get everything over with very quickly.

It would also establish Iran as a regional superpower with a stranglehold on the global economy. This might not matter if, as some suggest, the Iranians aren't quite as bad as they're made out to be. But if they are, we're screwed.

“There would have been no elections. Like it or not, Iraq's squabbling politicians are its best hope at national reconciliation.”

Except that he elections have no legitimacy.

“There would have been no one to dissuade Iran and other neighbouring states from wholesale intervention in Iraq. “

What you don’t seem to realise is that Iran has the Iraqi government in it’s hands. Did you not notice that Malaki visited Tehran this week and declared that Tehran was an ally? Did you not hear Hakim, the guy Bush invited to the WH (head of SCIRI and the leader of the Badr Militia), that if the SU were to attack Iran, the BADR would do it’s duty and attack the SU forces?

“And there would have been no one to stop the death squads from merging into genocidal armies.”

As opposed to the genocidal militias?

“ Allow Iran to arm the Shia to the teeth. Then let them annihalate the Sunni minority in revenge for Saddam's brutal Sunni dictatorship. This would get everything over with very quickly.”

Again you miss the point. One of the reason the violence has subsided in Baghdad is because there Sunni’s have been almost entirely driven out of the city. The US sided with the Shiites to begin with, in the belief that it would be the right side to back.

“It would also establish Iran as a regional superpower with a stranglehold on the global economy. This might not matter if, as some suggest, the Iranians aren't quite as bad as they're made out to be. But if they are, we're screwed“

We should have thought of that before invading, but Iran did make the offer for the grand bargain in 2003. Seems to me that the offer is still on the table. All they are asking is that we promise not to bomb them, but Cheney thinks that’s being unreasonable.

Spruce,

You have hit on Hitchens' peculiar justification for the war: we were already intervening in Iraq through sanctions, no-fly zones, etc., hollowing out the state from within, and sending it on an inevitable course towards failed nation-state status, which would then allow it to become a harbor for terrorists. We should therefore invade, (even if a very likely result of that invasion would be to create a power vacuum in the country that simply slides into chaos even more quickly).

You also, however, argue from an unfair advantage of not taking a position, because you just as happily exoriate the sanctions regime as you do the invasion. Would your policy have been to end the sanctions, pull out the weapons inspectors, end the no-fly zone, and sit back and watch?

Its fine to agree with Hitchens that our policy towards Iraq was wrong-headed for 20+ years. I agree, but if we did not invade in 2003, and we did not keep the sanctions regime in place, what should we have done?

Finally, I think you're wrong about the effect of America's presence in Iraq in so far as it puts something of a damper on naked Iranian or Saudi intervention in Iraq. Yes, Iraq is now a failed nation-state. And we helped it get to that point through foolish blunder after foolish blunder, so we now have a moral obligation to try to get the country back on its feet.

I should proof read before I post.

The line, "The north, in particular, became a semi-autonomous region and is the area in which Zarqawi fled after he left Baghdad." should read "after he left Afghanistan," not Baghdad.

Bush Administration's Negotiation Disclaimer: We reserve the right to bomb you at any time.

It's the new diplomacy - AKA perpetual war.

So the Iraqi elections had "no legimitacy"?

Not even the legitimacy of millions of people braving al-Qaida death threats and bombers to go out and vote?

Iraq's government is not in iranian hands, at least not yet. The US blocked Ibrahim Jaafari because he was too close to iran.

Iran's influence in iraq is absolutely nothign to what it could have achieved if Saddam Hussein's government had collapsed of its own accord, rather than with the US around to arrange elections and keep the Iranians out.

"So the Iraqi elections had "no legimitacy"?"

Come on GreenwichJ, even you can't be that naive. Think back to last November when Josh Bolton spoke about replacing Malaki and Malaki phoned Bush's office to ask if Washington had plans to replace him? Does that sound like the leader of a sovereign state leader to you?

Even the other night on the Daily Show, Bill Kristol spoke openly about having to replace Malaki.

“Iraq's government is not in iranian hands, at least not yet. The US blocked Ibrahim Jaafari because he was too close to iran.”

A perfect example of why the few remaining war supporters fails some miserably in their argument, They don’t even realize the glaring contradictions they make.

Amazing. So in the same breath you feign surprise a the suggestion that the Iraqi government lacks legitimacy, while simultaneously admitting that the Iraqi government still takes it’s orders from Washington.

“Iran's influence in Iraq is absolutely nothing to what it could have achieved if Saddam Hussein's government had collapsed of its own accord, rather than with the US around to arrange elections and keep the Iranians out.”

Completely wring again. Do you not read anything? The Iranians not only support the Iraqi government, but are even concerned about the US leaving, in case they lose influence in Iraq. The elections played right into Iran’s hands, not the other way around.

You know that guy, Hakim, who Bush invited to the White House and referred to as his eminence? He and his Badr brigade came into Iraq from Iran after the invasion. They are closer to Iran than anyone in Iraq, much more so than Sadr. This is the man Bush referred to as a partner, the same man who said that if the US were to attack Iran, he and his group would do their duty ie. Attack US forces.

See, when I went to school we learned to disprove something we simply had to show an example of how it was wrong. I believe our modern view of logic and argument holds this as a cornerstone. YOU point out what you say is a HOLE but you FAIL to ever say why that hole is factual. Please LIST what other options existed and what path should have been taken. Simply saying one must have existed or another path existed, because they always do IS NOT valid. That is the weakest argument ever and for someone demanding insight you apparently fail to provide any yourself.