So neither Britain nor Australia are "real" partners? I think they'd take offense to that.

Or do you really mean that we're not allowed to go to war without France and/or Russia's approval? Judging by the reports coming out of the Oil-for-Food investigation, I think it'd have been a cold day in hell before they gave up their cash cow.

And as to Hussein still being in power under Gore, don't forget the fringe benefits that come along with Hussein's removal. Libya would still have WMDs, we wouldn't know nearly as much about Iran's as we do, and Saddam would have been continuing to kill his people at a pretty healthy clip.

I'd rather have a small group of like-minded allies than a larger one that is so internally conflicted as to be unable to get anything done.

I'm also not sure why you think we need a reinstatement of the draft. Yes, we probably need to increase the size of the regular military, but I don't think anyone aside from Rangel(?) wants to do that via a draft.

The U.S., Britain and Australia (and the mercenaries we're paying from places like Poland) are not enough to establish democracy in Iraq. Got that? It will never happen.

Libya would still have WMDs

This is laughable. Qaddafi hasn't been an issue for 20 years. Your guy Reagan killed his kids, and that was the end of him.

Yes, we probably need to increase the size of the regular military, but I don't think anyone aside from Rangel(?) wants to do that via a draft.

There's what we "want," and then there's what's real. How's military recruiting going these days?

- 'Never gonna happen'? Not an issue, the USA isn't a 'democracy', anyway (it's a constitutional republic). As for Iraq, almost anything approaching a western society is an improvement.
- 'Never gonna happen'? Compare the progress made in Iraq's 1 year without Saddam vs South Africa's 10 years without Apartheid. The US and Allies are making more progress than any UN body could accomplish.

[ This is laughable. Qaddafi hasn't been an issue for 20 years. Your guy Reagan killed his kids, and that was the end of him. ]
- Qaddafi may be 'laughable' to you, but he still had his own stockpile of WMD. And he was trading them as well. Why did he turn over? He didn't want to end up like Saddam - period. Qaddafi was a relevent player, and he stopped after what was/is accomplished in Iraq.

[ There's what we "want," and then there's what's real. How's military recruiting going these days? ]
- Recruiting is great these days, thanks for asking. Resign rates are over 95% for the year in all the branches. New recruits are actually being turned away.
- Congress needs to enlarge the military before any increase in body count (voluntary or draft) happens. Consider Rangel's noise a sign of someone simply wanting attention.

Qaddafi may be 'laughable' to you, but he still had his own stockpile of WMD. And he was trading them as well.

Gee, why am I hesitant to believe that?

Why did he turn over? He didn't want to end up like Saddam - period.

For $10 million, he would have surrendered to Geraldo Rivera.

What do you suppose we were flying out of his country in those cargo planes?

Did you also notice how we suddenly knew an awful lot about how WMDs and materials for making same were floating around between Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea after Khaddafi saw the light? That information came from someone - someone who was pretty deeply involved in that sort of stuff.

Is it possible that we just happened upon someone who that sort of knowledge at the same time Libya was giving in? I suppose so, but I think it's pretty unlikely.

Well whaddya know, Jack--when the subject moves beyond the city borders, you and I are on exactly the same page. :)

Qaddafi's turn started in 1998, allowing extradition of Lockerbie suspects. The process of re-entering the global (economic) community has continued apace since then, largely taken up by the British since Bush replaced Clinton. And in fact it was the British who did the negotiating and secured the agreement on the main sticking point, admitting guilt in Lockerbie. Even if you accept Bush's role as "bad cop," the process of engagement started long before he arrived, and was the critical factor in Libya's opening.

And their "WMDs" were minimal to negligible. Their nuclear readiness was somewhat further along than we believed, but their chemical stores were nothing to be excited about at all.

If anything Libya represents a repudiation of Bush administration strategy, not a fulfillment. How was it achieved? Through cripping economic sanctions, political isolation, and constructive engagement. Now THERE'S a concept.

I truly don't understand the analogy between Iraq and South Africa. When did we invade them and occupy the country until they changed governments? When was the great South African insurgency? Once again we see the reality of how radical change was achieved--constructive engagement in the face of crippling economic sanctions and political isolation.

Even if you accept Bush's role as "bad cop," the process of engagement started long before he arrived, and was the critical factor in Libya's opening.

"Critical" is too high a rating. It's nice that Qaddafi was 'engaged' for so long. But he wasn't motivated to solve the problem until Bush got Saddam.

And yes - it's great the British played 'good cop'. Keep an eye on Australia - Syria is now talking to them.

'Good cop', it's a great idea - and more successful than anything Clinton accomplished.

If anything Libya represents a repudiation of Bush administration strategy, not a fulfillment. How was it achieved? Through cripping economic sanctions, political isolation, and constructive engagement.

Qaddafi admitted that seeing Saddam captured is what got him to turn over. Talking for years is nice, and gives the UN something to do. But sanctions didn't make Qaddafi change his mind, invading Iraq did.

I truly don't understand the analogy between Iraq and South Africa.

Time is the issue. Iraq, outside of the isolated Saddam hold-outs, is doing great. Iraq is doing much better only 1 year after Iraq was invaded. Besides the removal of Saddam's rape-, torture- and genocide-programs, the infrastructure is improving over pre-invasion levels.

South Africa was freed from Apartheid 10 years ago. But the country is doing very poorly today - even after 10 years to improve the situation.

So doesn't it boil down to this: That to get rid of Saddam, we've alienated our allies and started a fight that we can't finish (at least not without reinstituting a Vietnam-style draft)?

Well, you're assuming there that the reason was just to get rid of Saddam. I believe that was part of it, yes (due to Cheney's teeth-gnashing), but I think the much bigger and deeper reason was to use Iraq as the entryway to the opening up of the Middle East to free market capitalism, Western-style.

So when you ask if it was worth it, well, I think Bechtel, GE and JP Morgan would say hell yeah.

Scott--
When you say he wasn't motivated to solve the problem, I'm not sure what you mean. The problem was that Libya was an economic and political pariah. He changed his mind years ago, and of all the steps he's taken, admitting a moribund WMD effort is one of the least of them. Sanctions changed his mind, as he admitted 6 years ago.

I'm going to have to ask you to bring something to the table suggesting that Iraq is much improved. I think you're pulling my chain; Iraq is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than pre-Saddam. Electricity and oil are not at pre-invasion levels, crime is rampant and unsolved, shortages of water and food are common, and reconstruction is at a near standstill over the last 3-4 weeks. The only area of Iraq that is not seeing turmoil is the Kurdish far North. When you say "Saddam hold outs," you seem to ignore several cities in the Shiite south that are experiencing regular violence--Kut, Kufa, Najaf, Karbala, Basra, et al. Saddam's rape, torture and genocide programs were not killing 1,000 Iraqis a month, as the Coaliton is--I guarantee you that.

I fail to see how South Africa is doing " very poorly." Elections are now on their fourth cycle, without significant violence. The reconciliation boards were a big success and an importantly unique way to bring historical adversaries together and reach some kind of rhetorical closure on the past.

Hey Jack, You can't name one official from the RNC, the White House, or the Bush/Cheney campaign that has said one negative comment about his time spent in Vietnam. Not one.

> I think the much bigger and deeper reason was to use Iraq as the entryway to the opening up of the Middle East to free market capitalism, Western-style.

No!! Not CAPITALISM! Before you know it, people will be investing money! And then, people will have jobs, and will earn money, and will pay taxes. Then the government will have money and can build roads and schools, and hire police and firemen. What a tragedy for the people of Iraq - surely prosperity is the last thing they need.

"In effect, Marx is dealing with pre-capitalist conditions, and ignoring the truth which stared him in the face: the more capital, the less suffering." Intellectuals, Paul Johnson

> Saddam's rape, torture and genocide programs were not killing 1,000 Iraqis a month, as the Coaliton is--I guarantee you that.

You're right, genius. They were killing more than 3,000.

"Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people."

- "How Many People Has Saddam Hussein Killed?", John Burns, NYT, 1/23/2003

But you're right - Iraq must be worse off now, because now the U.S. is involved. Everyone knows that whatever the U.S. is doing is automatically wrong, right?

Brett, I agree that the more capital, the less suffering. The problem is that less and less capital is going to those who are suffering. The reality is that most people worldwide are suffering big-time under the implementations of free market economics while a very small percentage profit immensely. Period.

If in fact 1 million were killed, 975,000 of them died at least a decade ago, mostly two decades ago.

Nice ad hominem attacks, though.

Emily -

What evidence do you have of that? I know that the view you articulate is commonly held, but I have never heard anyone support it with actual evidence or logic. The existence of rich people does not mean that everyone else is suffering; capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Quite the opposite.

and Joe - Last I checked, attacking someone's argument, even sarcastically, was not an ad hominem attack. And what makes you think that most of those people died so long ago? Sure, more people probably died in the Shiite uprising post-Gulf War I than had been dying in recent years, but all indications are that the genocide continued unabated up until the invasion.

calling someone a "genius," sarcastically, is an ad hominem attack.

And I don't know of any evidence of genocide in Iraq since 1991. Do you have some?

You're right. I apologize for that. It just gets my dander up to hear people equate Hussein's crimes with what the Coalition is trying to do.

As for evidence of continuing genocide, here's some:

http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/ACR/ACR00/ACR00-Iraqs.html

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

The greatest number of killings probably did happen in 1991 for Shia and 1988 for Kurds. But in any event, why does that matter? People killed 20 years ago are just as dead as those killed last week.