I get so tired of hearing this one.

If we wanted a client state, Saddam's regime would have been perfect. We could have made a deal with him to syphon off his oil in exchange for a guarantee of his power and the succession of his family. The same kind of deal that we have been accused of in other countries and perhaps guilty of in some.This would have served our financial interests but Saddam was hated by the majority of Islamists and we would have only caused further polarization. In addition, Saddam was too treacherous and his desire to dominate the region would have eventually turned him against us. The desire of Russia and certain European states to retain Iraq as their client state prevented a full coalition.

As a country with resources, a higher than average level of education level and a diverse, somewhat secular population, Iraq presented the opportunity to establish a model Arab state, democratic, prosperous and progressive. A poor country like Afghanistan does not provide the same opportunity. It has proven to be very difficult and while a victory will be huge and could change the balance in the Middle East, to lose would be a severe set-back.

The influx of foreign terrorists into Iraq shows that the enemy sees it the same way.

Will there be some capitalistic opportunities in the rebuilding? Yes, but this will benefit Iraq in the long run as well as the ROW.

IMO it was never about WMD, hatred of Saddam or humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people. It was about changing the face of the Middle East and defeating Islamic extremism. Based on what we are hearing from Kerry, that fight will go on with or without Bush.

Whether we should have done it and whether we will succeed is not certain at this point but I doubt the morality of having done it will stand out in the history of the difficult times ahead.