Btw, I lived in the UK for many years, and brought home the ultimate souvenir: a bride.

The writer speaks of “decades” but the Iraq War is only 5 years long. Exaggeration is one of the hallmarks of their debate tactics.

The writer seems to believe that the Iraq War is a result of a US policy that uses war as the “primary” tool of foreign policy. The writer conveniently overlooks the fact that the Iraq War was preceded by 13 long years of ‘diplomacy.’

All Saddam had to do was live up to the agreements after he was defeated when he invaded Kuwait and he would still no doubt be happily torturing hapless Iraqi citizens, rewarding the families of suicide bombers, murdering political opponents and embezzling funds from the UN. Saddam chose the hard road and paid the price but only after many years of perfidy.

The anti-war folks are always railing about the cost of the Iraq War as if we pro-war folks are oblivious to the cost of military actions. Since all wars are costly, either in money or lives, the unstated assumption behind such protests is that war itself should never be an option – which is a ridiculous position. By this philosophy the writer would have been against America’s participation in WW2 and the defeat of the Axis powers would not have been accomplished – because it would have been too costly. Let’s hope Obama will be more realistic in his attitude.

Occam: Thank you, I am sure the honour (honor?) would be all mine, and I shall watch out for your posts in future and join the debate.

We can expect no increase in taxes — since Americans have never wanted to pay for the war, despite all the talk about loving it in the beginning — so there will simply have to be more borrowing to pay for what, I suppose, some people will call the very expensive post-victory clean up and maintenance operations.

Of course there are benefits to the invasion and to a military aggression in general. The question, however, is whether those benefits surpass the costs. A closely related question is whether military aggression is sustainable over long periods. History shows over and over and over again that it is not.

Given that we lack the resources — as every society in history has — to maintain military aggression over decades, it doesn’t seem very smart to rely on it as the primary guarantee of geopolitical stability and public safety.

Bogey’s view of modern terrorism, and the policy which naturally follows from it, is likely to be tested to destruction by the incoming Obama administration. No more nasty neocons engaged in pointless foreign wars. Just sensible, clever people in charge, who know that jihad terrorism is a tactic to achieve strategic goals, not the logical conclusion of an ideological mission to transform all human societies into one big Islamist paradise on earth. We shall see, now that the Left are charged with responsibility, what comes of it and will have to hope that the inevitable mess can still be sorted out when they have finished.

On a few specifics……

1. As Grackle explains at length, the threat to America’s public safety is a matter of technology, not ideology and certainly not military capacity.As he explains, it is a relatively simple matter to deliver a weapon of mass destruction.Therefore, no amount of military domination can prevent such attacks.

On the contrary Bogey, military domination can deny to terrorists the apparatus of a nation state and freedom to act with impunity inside certain geographical borders – precisely what has occurred in Afghanistan and in the counter-insurgency phase of the war in Iraq. The first phase of the Iraq war denied that apparatus and freedom to Saddam Hussein, the head of a Nazist regime, with a proven record of genocidal deployment of chemical munitions.

2. The experience in Iraq demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that military invasions create more opportunities for terrorists than they destroy.

Not so. The experience in Iraq quite clearly demonstrates that if a conservative President chooses, rightly, to ignore the child-adults of the Left and the lofty Whigs in his own party, and instead uses the military instrument to its full capacity, even the highly determined and incredibly vicious modern jihadist can be utterly defeated.

3. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or religion or race or military grouping. It will always be with us. There were always be the technological means to create mass destruction, and so, it will always remain a threat.

Correct. Islamism and jihadism however are ideologies, and can be defeated, by a combination of physical inderdiction of their weapons and combatants, and philosophical challenge, loudly and insistently, of their ideas.

Whether the jihadist is capable of destroying western societies, as is his stated intention, remains in question. A well placed WMD, supplied by a well organised Islamist state (Iran, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, a future Pakistan) or an opportunistic and hostile autocracy (Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya), could hasten the disintegration of the western democracy into something very nasty.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have delayed that event.

On a few specifics….

On the contrary Bogey, military domination can deny to terrorists the apparatus of a nation state and freedom to act with impunity inside certain geographical borders – precisely what has occurred in Afghanistan and in the counter-insurgency phase of the war in Iraq. The first phase of the Iraq war denied that apparatus and freedom to Saddam Hussein, the head of a Nazist regime, with a proven record of genocidal deployment of chemical munitions.

Not so. The experience in Iraq quite clearly demonstrates that if a conservative President chooses, rightly, to ignore the child-adults of the Left and the lofty Whigs in his own party, and instead uses the military instrument to its full capacity, even the highly determined and incredibly vicious modern jihadist can be utterly defeated.

Correct. Islamism and jihadism however are ideologies, and can be defeated, by a combination of physical inderdiction of their weapons and combatants, and philosophical challenge, loudly and insistently, of their ideas.

Whether the jihadist is capable of destroying western societies, as is his stated intention, remains in question. A well placed WMD, supplied by a well organised Islamist state (Iran, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, a future Pakistan) or an opportunistic and hostile autocracy (Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya), could hasten the disintegration of the western democracy into something very nasty.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have delayed that event.

Both these states are the most fanatic and tyrant who deploying deformed version of Islam.

Madrasah all around the world crated and supported by Saudis are the breading hols for the fanatics were radicalized people mind as the tyrant Saudi likes and this obvious in many places and historical events.

Iranian they using Hussaiena and those Shiites places like Noor Al-Hudda and other names that Iranian like to linked them to their agencies to support them and trying to built colony that people are living on land but their hearts to Mullah in Tehran the very obvious example NasserAllah when he said if Ali Khaminie asked me to kill my self I will do.

Sadly what we saw in Iraq that US brought those their hearts and supported by Iranian like Al-Hakeem and his Bader militia midwives by Iranians 25 years ago and others like Al-Ja’afary and so on and so forth.

by Iran and Syria.

Oddly here we got same talk different actions, before Iraq and that Axis of Evil, S. Korea was the major state have the treat in matter of technology and production of MDW but we got Iraq hit few time and finally invaded on having dangerous and threaten US!!

So now Iran publically enriching uranium discarded UN regulations and preventing inceptors, suddenly we wakeups on hit to Syrian facilities.