Paul J. Adam wrote:

Though I'd also very carefully examine the expected costs and benefits
of invading Iraq, as opposed to continuing the containment: there are
other threats out there that might also need to be dealt with, and it
would be useful to have some forces available to do so.

I think the containment phase of dealing with Saddam had pretty
much run its course. At the time of the war, anti-admin types
were arguing the sanctions were cruel, causing pain only to
innocent Iraqi children. Some truth to that despite late changes
to sanction policies.

Of course the Russians and French were chafing at the bit to get
back to open business relations with Saddam. Support for containment
was fading.

Iraq was becoming more aggressive in going after no-fly patrols.
It was just a matter of time before an aircraft was going to be
lost and I am in complete amazement that none were lost, even
due to just mechanical failure over the years of the no-fly zones.

I think we'd gotten to the point where we had to either get rid
of Saddam, or get off his back...until he was at our throats in
a more obvious manner. I'm sure he would have been, but that was
probably still years down the road.

I never believed Iraq was a terrorist threat (at least not significantly
so at the time; perhaps eventually). I truly believed he did have
WMDs and am amazed nothing much has been found.

Over all, I think the war was a good call. I just wish *someone*
had thought more about the peace. The military planning was
brilliant but the post war appears to have been an after-thought.

I think the end result can still be favorable for the US and the
West in general, but it will require much more money and blood
than it otherwise would have if someone had just done a bit more
post-war planning.


SMH