It is interesting that you have been in touch with a number of experts on the "radicalization" caused by Iraq.

I wish you could ask them some questions for me:

If we had never touched Iraq, who among these newly-radicalized Muslims (that everyone talks about but nobody seems to be able to actually quantify in real terms) would have remained calm and neutral in the face of Afghanistan--home of the Taliban and al Qaeda, next door to radical Western Pakistan--being occupied by the Crusader?

I seem to be unable to pound this particular question into anyone's head.

I am repeatedly told that it was impossible for Saddam to cooperate with terrorists because he was a secular ruler that al Qaeda hated. I am told this again and again.

Then I am told, often by the same people, that somehow, removing Saddam from power and occupying this secular nation, has energized and inspired those Saddam-hating Islamists into a jihad that would never have happened with Afghanistan as a cause.

Ask them about this.

If the question is too convoluted, ask them if we had never gone near Iraq, what would Zawahari, Zarquawi, al-Masri, and the rulers of Wazristan, be doing right now?