"...nobody has ever explained to me why invading Iraq, supposedly a secular enemy of the Islamists, somehow would raise the ire of al Qaeda and the radical Islamists more than invading Afghanistan, home of the Islamist Taliban and a home base of al Qaeda at the time."

Of course, the Islamists were delighted to see the fall of a secularist dictatorship where they were not welcome and where they were hunted down, replaced by an occupation army already with its hands full, no local knowledge and a sectarian split they could exploit. Iraq is where they can train people and kill Americans cheaper and faster than anywhere else, while their own logistics are simplified and their casualties limited to suicide cannon fodder. Iraq is easier to get to, after all, than Afghanistan, and there's plenty of ordnance and fanatics lying around. And they speak Arabic there, a perfect theatre for their operations.

Perhaps the Bush administration can be forgiven for not anticipating this development (I'll be honest, I didn't either). But to continue with this bankrupt policy after the situation became perfectly obvious, deliberately ignoring the new developments to save face and adjusting for them, is unforgiveable.

"The influx of Islamist terrorists opposing American forces would have been exactly the same if we had invaded Syria, Iran, Morocco, or Yemen."

Precisely. You see that now. We all see it now. The Bush Administration never did. The situation has now deteriorated to the point where its difficult to see how any policy or strategy could help us break even, or even keep our losses manageable.

There's a lot of people like me, TB who originally supported this war and who now reject it for other reasons than "we want to see America lose". And I would still support it if I could see a way to win it, even if it meant a long, bloody campaign. There isn't. The Bush plan now is simply to prolong it so he can dump it in the lap of the next President.

He'll never get away with it. His own party won't let him.