My beloved compatriot Mr. Younghusband, while I’m glad you felt that Mr. Moore’s film was garbage, what was wrong with the arguments for invading Iraq? Others have been far more articulate than me, so I’ll leave it to them.

First, a recent article from this charming site sums up the arguments. To get into more detail, despite what Senators Kerry and Graham would have us think, invading Iraq did not worsen our Al Qaeda problem. Moreover, as Mr. Bush recently said in a campaign speech, are we to believe that Al Zarqawi and his ilk would be flying kites in Jordan? Internationally, would Libya have gone good? Would the DPRK and Iran not be sweating in their boots? Are we not pressuring governments in the region to reform, including the Saudis? Ironically, did we not force the UN to actually mean what it said? We both knew from the start that the whole WMD argument was silly, as was “bringing democracy to the Middle East.” But publics like the wishy-washy stuff. And the soldiers on the ground (who incidentally support Mr. Bush at rates of 70~80% according to surveys) were told they were going in to take care of Saddam Hussein. Mission accomplished.

No, the post-war administration has been far from perfect. But we’re students of war. Plans of attack never go as planned, and peacekeeping can be messy, especially with everyone wanting us to fail. War is unpredictable and brutal.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « A welcome trend
• » Sgt. Jenkins Reporting for Duty