So yeah, we made mistakes and we lost. But that doesn't mean that the war was entirely a bad idea.

Removing Hussein might have qualified as a reasonable goal, particularly if it signaled a serious shift in US policy towards other dictators and despots. As it happened, it didn't, and thus is the whole premise of the war and this disastrous occupation rendered null.

The Kurds are glad that we're there, and they're 20% of the population.

We've had assets in the Kurd region since 1991. Old news and an even worse excuse.

A lot of people have died, but a lot would have died under Hussein.

The last four years of occupation have killed more Iraqis than Hussein did in his quarter century-plus reign of terror. Plus which Iraq had a functioning infrastructure and society prior to the 2003 invasion.

Since then, 'Iraq' has become nothing more than a geographic notation.

The sectarian violence that we're seeing would likely have happened anyway, but in a few decades after Hussein died.

Which means hundreds of thousands (at least) of Iraqi Kurds, Shiite and Sunnis would still be alive and Iraq still a semi-functioning society.

Or should we have allowed his sons to come to power?

Was this likely? No one can say now.

There is such a thing as a just war (WWII is the best example), and this could have been one. It's too bad that it wasn't. And I can't fault those who supported it on humanitarian grounds.

WHO ever supported the start of this vainglorious march into Babylon on "humanitarian grounds" when it began? Name them, if you please!

Just imagine, though, the kind of work environment those chickenhawks must inhabit (or perpetuate?) if there is not even a modicum of empathy for those who are perhaps lower on the food chain than they are, and actually have someone overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As I postulated earlier, a Draft with no deferments would quite quickly and efficiently teach these cheerleaders some 'empathy' on that score. Nothing clarifies ones priorities like the threat of imminent death; and if they've shown nothing else, these advocates and pundits have shown their sole priority is saving their own necks.

In fact, you could bet the house they'd be positively crowing for the occupation to end far more loudly than they cheered this Gordonesque expedition at the start.

And as yet, you haven't even offered an opinion substantial enough to even disagree with.

I thought that was just him venting methane out his ass.

Isn't there some lesson to be learned from electing bush?

Well, several lessons actually:

1. There is a section of the American electorate that can continually be conned into voting for the most vile, yet personable, individuals.

2. The Electoral College causes all sorts of electoral problems at the worst moments.

3. You can't automatically count on a candidate's patriotism or good intentions, least of all when they hire someone like Karl Rove.

Sadly, it seems we Americans are slow learners. Probably explains why the graduation rates in our high schools are so abysmal.

But since I did have some hope that the war would work,

Good news. The war worked out fine and ended five years ago.

Its the occupation and everything that's happened since then that has put paid to whatever might have been accomplished.

I can understand the "liberal hawks" (the focus of GG's post), and I can tell you that they they aren't bad people, or intellectually lazy, or unable to learn from their mistakes (as implied by GG).

The issue isn't what these cheerleaders thought back in 2003. Its whether or not they've actually learned anything from the disaster that they've invoked.

Going by the tone and content of the various 'mea culpas' (which should have been accompanied by public flogging of each of them), they haven't actually changed their views or advocacy. If anything, they sound even more committed to the vague notions of empire and manifest destiny that drove them in the first place.

They, like me, honestly thought the war might do some good, and they had good reasons for thinking that way.

Perhaps. Perhaps they should have considered Murphy's Law is a universal constant as well. One can hope for all manner of things; its whether or not one deals with the reality of events that is at issue.

Why do you think these 'not-really-volunteers' of your joined?

I believe the original comment was referring (perhaps too subtly) to the increasing overuse of both Stop-Loss Orders, the re-deployment of walking wounded, and the call-up and extended deployments of National Guard units to Iraq.

In effect, the occupation of Iraq is being done by forced conscription accomplished through legal loopholes and a gross disregard for the emotional and mental health of the troops themselves.

More's the pity that we'll be back to the 'Hollow Army' before too long.

"The banality of the surveilance state."

Its madness to think that allowing anyone unlimited access to data of any stripe won't lead to abuse of some sort.

Of course, there will be those who excuse everything as "necessary" for "national security"...at least until their own lives are compromised by this insanity.

Courtesy of The Carpetbagger Report:

According to a new piece out in the Post from Glenn Kessler, the breaches occurred Jan. 9th, Feb. 21st and March 14th.

That would be the day after the New Hampshire primary, the day of the Democratic debate in Texas and the day the Wright story really hit.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14962.html#more-14962

The stink of dirty politics is getting a little overwhelming here.