<It all depends on how you define "success", doesn't it?

If you define success narrowly as achieving military objectives, then success is likely. "Our boys [and girls]" will prevail. While I'd be proud of them and glad if casualties are minimal, I wouldn't presume to claim their success as mine.

But if you define success more broadly, as securing America's safety and enhancing our position and stature in the world, then I really don't see Bush's war as having any chance of success.



Well, let's see what happened before. Ten years ago this week, Islamic radicals exploded a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Their goal was to cause one tower to collapse into the other, bringing both down. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful and the attack only resulted in 6 deaths and several hundred injuries. We did nothing to go after those who sponsored the attack.

Over the years, we had other terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists on other American targets. We had the Kobe (sp) Towers attack against US military personnel in Saudi Arabia. We did nothing. We had attacks against two of our Embassies in Africa. We launched a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory and empty training camps. We had the attack on the USS Cole and did nothing in response.

Contrast that with what has happened since 9-11. We've deposed the Taliban from their tyrannical rule in Afghanistan, denying the terrorists a base of operations. We've worked with other governments around the world from Yemen to the Philippines to go after terrorist groups. We're pressing the point to other governments with a history of supporting terrorism, including Iraq. While it's far from over, no serious terrorist attack has happened against American targets since 9-11. As Churchill said following Dunkirk, "This is not the end. It isn't the beginning of the end. But perhaps, it's the end of the beginning."

Not meaning to Fisk you, but it's hard to address so many topics in a single paragraph.

That's the basis of my opposition to Bush's war. It's not about Saddam, it's about whether the war is truly in America's best interests.

I believe eliminating state sponsored terrorism is in our interests.

He'll destabilize the Middle East, alienate our former allies,

Perhaps some destabilization in the Middle East would be a good thing if it'd get rid of absolute monoarchies who have supported terrorism (the Saudis) or dictators and tyrants. Somehow, "Let's make the world safe for tyrants" doesn't exactly ring, does it? As this columnist from the Hindustan Times (India knows a thing or two about terrorism from Islamic extremists*)

The shortlist of nations who declined to change their ways became the ‘axis of evil’. Iraq was deemed danger No. 1. It was judged the most likely place for terrorists to get WMD. It was also felt a message had to be sent to such countries. Toppling Hussein would do just fine.



The second front was about the long-term eradication of the root causes of Al-Qaeda-type terrorism. All the terrorist-wallahs and Arabists the Bush administration tapped said the same thing: the reason educated Arabs sign up with bin Laden is a lack of democracy in their homelands. The antidote: open up the Arab world.

Two professors, Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis, are the gurus of this belief. Their acolytes include Cheney and Rice. Completely overhauling the Arab world is a task roughly comparable to knocking the Soviet bloc, so the White House has preferred not to blow the trumpet on this. Instead, lesser officials like the State Department’s policy planning chief, Richard Haass, and Rice’s deputy, Stephen Hadley, have served as mouthpieces. The second front warriors are pushing for the occupation of Iraq as they need a model Arab democracy. Iraqis are secular and are expected to welcome ballot boxes after decades of dictatorship. It also has enough oil to pay for its own revival.





destroy the economy and leave a huge debt as his legacy,

Funny how this is the first time I can remember people seriously questioning the cost of a war. Fact is, it's kind of refreshing to hear Democrats question the cost of anything the government does. Too bad they never apply the same skepticism against other government programs.

burden us with a dependent Iraq,

Are we burdened by a dependent Germany, Japan, or Italy? How about South Korea, France, the Philippines or a host of other countries that we liberated? Establishing a prosperous and democratic Iraq won't be easy or quick, but it'll be worth it in the long run.

and destroy the UN without filling the vacuum with anything better or even equivalent.

Actually, the UN and NATO are destroying themselves by their irrelevancy. The UN Security Council has passed 17 previous resolutions against Iraq. Saddam ignored them all. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting a different result. Years of sanctions and inspections didn't cause Saddam to disarm. It seems rather pointless to believe that a few more weeks, months, or years of the same thing will somehow have a different outcome.

Iraq is roughly the same size as California. If we had Iraq's full cooperation, we could do the job of finding the weapons with 100 inspectors. Without Iraq's cooperation, we couldn't do the job with 10,000 inspectors. There are simply too many places and ways to hide things so they can't be found.

I think Bush is badly screwing the pooch.

Hardly surprising that I disagree. Time will tell which of us is right, if either. As Yogi Bera and Niels Bohr both said, predictions are difficult, especially about the future.