I find it difficult to believe that people have been unable to see the so-called "Surge" for what it truly is - raising the troop levels to the level they should have been right from the beginning. If Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney had been listening to the majority of generals from the beginning, rather than choosing to listen the ones who were telling them what they wanted to hear, we would have had far more troops in place much earlier.

This is simply more evidence that the Bush administration was not only completely unprepared to lead this war, but they were completely incompetent. It reinforces the message they have been sending the rest of the world since the beginning of their tenure in office - they know everything better.

The argument for a small footprint in Iraq was to have our actions match our words: We aren't here to take over; we're here to keep order while a new democratic government is set up.

Having more boots might have caused a greater reaction to our presence, and of course more boots means more targets.

You shouldn't assume with the rest of the left that just because things are bad that some alternative would have been better.

I can guess at your logic hear, but does this same logic apply to the surge then. Why won't Iraqis see the 'surge' as an attempt to nail a permenant footprint in Iraq, especially given the lack of prospect of a draw down? Has something changed? If a large number of troops was a mistake upon invasion, why is it not now?

tracker:

The argument for a small footprint in Iraq was to have our actions match our words: We aren't here to take over; we're here to keep order while a new democratic government is set up.

Actually, the argument for the smaller footprint from Rummy was that this was going to be cakewalk and we'd be out of there in no more than six months.

How'd that work out?

...You shouldn't assume with the rest of the left that just because things are bad that some alternative would have been better...

LOL! How about the alternative of NOT invading a nation that posed no threat to the United States, did not possess WMDs, was not connected to al Qaeda, and was not involved in 9/11? Half a million innocent Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops would still be alive, and Saddam Hussein would be in the same non-threatening position he was in six years ago. What's not better about that alternative? What color is the sky in your world?

You need to read less propoganda.

You think Iraqis might mistake the surge for an effort to take over the country? What's changed? Our role is known at this point, that's what's changed ... or did you miss us allowing and protecting Iraqis as they voted in their own government?!

...We aren't here to take over; we're here to keep order while a new democratic government is set up...

That's funny--I don't remember the Iraqis ASKING US to invade their country, destroy their infrastructure, and unleash chaos that has resulted in the deaths of some 500,000 of their countrymen, just so that we could "keep order while a new government is set up." LOL! Could you please point out for the board exactly when that request was made by the Iraqi government and/or people?

You apparently would have been one of those to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the hundreds of times Hussein promised to destroy the US in his own country's newspapers, tipped his hand there that he foreknew of the attacks on NY, and kept up relations with al-Qaeda."

Hussein's actions were a de facto declaration of war on us, which is reason enough to remove him and his government from power. What Iraqis wanted is irrelevant, as they didn't succeed in removing such a leader themselves.

Slate debunked that 500,000 number. If you want to keep it, subtract it from the 1,000,000 the Lancet said die due to economic sanctions under Clinton ... you know, those non-war deaths that Madaline Albright said were "worth it" to contain Saddam.

Saddam also said that the first Gulf War was going to be the "Mother of all battles," and it was a complete rout.

Why would you base your justifications on anything he said? He was well-known for engaging in ridiculous hyperbole that he had no capacity for carrying out just to save face.

The article in Al-Nasiriya, to me, indicates Saddam or actors in Iraq were in some way aware of bin Laden's pending attacks on the Pentagon, White House, and Trade Center buildings. I know from somewhere that it is Arab custom to warn about an attack before it comes, giving your opponent a chance to repent or some such thing.

Hussein's veracity might have been in doubt prior to 9/11, but after the fact, and with the evidence I cited, I think we'd have been nuts to have ignored him. Iraq's borders are too porous, and alliances of convenience are commonplace in the ME.

Really? Our role there is known? The weak, powerless government thrown together based along ethnic lines is really the test you want for our the acceptability of our forces on the ground for Iraqis.

The surge may have been greeted well if it were truly a surge, but, as the article makes clear, it has changed nothing about our manpower committment to Iraq in the long term, and might necessitate a permenant escalation lest those Sunni militias who we conveniently armed and handed over territory to should raise their guns against the 'government' yet again. Of course, that was just a culmination of a process that was started because there were not enough troops on the ground in the first place (your counterfactual is absurd). So we are stuck holding peace between two sides, and essentially to protect the Sunnis from an inevitable massacre.

Raise your hands if you think the Sadrists are going to be cooperative in the long run once we've run out of carrots to keep them quiet.

The lancet numbers already factored in the deaths due to sanctions.

So, your proof is a five year old article citing a memo leaked by an administration that is has been documented time and time again that they were willing to credit any justification for the invasion, no matter how spurious or tenuous? Do we really need to rehash their listening someone whose code name was "Curveball" again?

Let's try a less partisan source than the Weekly Standard, which is edited by noted neocon cheerleader and the world's worst prognosticator, Bill Kristol.

Like say, the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission:

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

<link>

Or how about the Pentagon:

"Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides."

<link>

Or maybe this Senate Report issued in 2006 when the GOP still controlled both houses of Congress:

"Senate Report: No Saddam, al-Qaida Link."

"It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”"

<link>

So, we have the Pentagon, the CIA, the (GOP-controled) US Senate, and the bi-partisan 9/11Commission all concluding that, once the full record was examined, there was no link between Saddam and al Qaida or 9/11.

So, that leaves us with one of two possible conclussions for the ramp up to the invasion: 1) The Bush administration, desperate to find any justification to invade, gave credence to the thinest evidence of a connection and ignored any contrary evidence; or 2) They were deliberately lying to us.

Take your pick.

I didn't say they worked together, I simply pointed out that Iraq's own state newpaper divulged pretty plainly it knew what al-Qaeda was up to and was pretty happy about the coming attacks.

No one in the Bush administration ever claimed Saddam was aiding al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks ... they said Saddam's WMD arsenal would be disasterous in al-Qaeda's hands, and that there were connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda, which is confirmed by your own links.

Risk assessments have 2 parts: the probability of an outcome, and the negative weight of that outcome. You don't need even likelihood of a collaboration between Saddam and bin Laden for the assessment to say "act." That's because the outcome of a collaboration would terrifically bad.

The adminstration's point has always been that it would be too dangerous to allow Iraq, with its WMDs and long history of concealment programs, to co-exist in the ME with al-Qaeda. That point is the main one, and is consistently ignored by the lefty media.