Remember Afganistan? The country that was descending into anarchy when our reconstruction efforts weren’t proceeding fast enough? Al Queda and the Iranian government, among others, have simply diverted their efforts from Afganistan towards Iraq. Probably the right move politically from their part, as the Iraq war never had the same level of support here in the US that the Afganistan war did, but the move is a zero sum game for Al Queda and Iran’s standpoint, as they seem to lack the ability to wage a full scale operation against the US in two countries. Of course, if the US DOES pull out of Iraq before the Iraqis can govern themselves, guess where Al Queda and Iran’s resources will go next?

As far Iran’s influence on Iraq, as Hitchens noted, that cuts two ways. The people in Iran have witnessed several free and (largely) democratic elections, ones in which the candidates and outcome were not preselected. The people in Iran have also had a chance to observe an Ayatolla who is content to act as a spiritual advisor and does not seek to rule the nation outright. The violence in Iraq is terrible, but not more so than Iran (where opponents are literally whipped to death, in public, for merely questioning the regime) , and certainly less than what occurred during Saddam’s rule (and of course, most of the violence being committed in Iraq is done by henchmen of Saddam’s regime, so it seems extremely obscene to blame the US for those deaths).

And what shall we say of those who declare Hussein immaterial? Not much good….

Moreover, the mullahs see the American Army bogged down next door and are now more aggressive in flaunting the rest of the world with their nuclear program. Iran turned out to be the big winner from the Iraqi invasion.

Specious argument, and illogical as well.

As for changing the dynamic of the Middle East: it has changed for the worse. The threat posed by Hussein to American interests was minimal, and we replaced it with a much larger threat: expanded Iranian influence in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Say what you will about Hussein, but his regime was a countervailing force to Iran. I don’t see the point in losing American lives and treasure to remove a dictator when the result is to strengthen an even more worrisome foe, which has (or will soon have) real weapons of mass destruction.

As for spreading gloom and doom: I call them as I see them (and, apparently, as the soldiers on the ground also see it). As Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things, and the situation there is indisputably gloomy. The only way to find a solution to the problem is to look at it with clear eyes, and if the result is a gloomy one, then so be it.

We can’t do this everywhere, of course – but Bush was right that the status quo in the Middle East had to change – how soon you seem to have forgotten what happened in Lebanon, and the voluntary disclosure of Libya’s WMD program, along with its dismantlement.

I know you’re an opponent of the war, but if you just want to spread doom and gloom, as I’ve said before, I don’t think that’s very productive. Suit yourself, however….

While it is easy to recommend staying the course from a computer keyboard, the soldiers who are actually in Iraq consider the war to be unwinnable, and 72% think we should withdraw within a year (29% say immediately):

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002076066