The overwhelming majority of Muslims, and Arabs are very much interested in defending their countries from outside invasion by a hostile, aggressive and expansionist power. To the extent that the Iraq war can be sold as such, by Islamist propagandists, then opposing the Americans in Iraq, with violence, can become a "cause celebre". The work of those propagandists is made easy by the fact that there probably doesnt seem to be a very coherent alternative explanation for the American invasion. Especially after WMD were not found. Reasons that resonate with many here, the spread of democracy, can very easily be seen as wholly consistent with the notion that America wants to impose itself, and its values on others, by force.

'Had we not gone into Iraq, would there still be a major Islamist terrorist threat? Of course.'

If we hadn't, would America be in a stronger position? Also, of course.

The army wouldn't be broken; the country wouldn't be divided; worldwide support for the war on terror (which included Iran remember) would still be intact; Afghanistan would not be falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and maybe, just maybe, torture would not now be part of what it means to be an American.

In one of his rare moments of rational thinking Rumsfeld asked the important question- Are we killing more terrorists then we are creating? The answer is in the NIE and its 'NO'. If James and Jonah think discussions regarding four year old polls is constructive, then they need a special room all of their own. Preferably padded.

We had a lot of cooperation and goodwill for the Afghanistan campaign.

From Europe, etc, perhaps. But per the Goldberg cite, not from Muslims:

A Gallup poll taken in nine Muslim nations in February 2002 found that more than three-fourths of respondents considered the liberation of Afghanistan unjustifiable. A mere 9 percent supported U.S. actions.

And it is Muslims about whom we're talking, not governments and not westerners.

If Afghanistan was good enough to be a cause celebre in the '80s among extremists, I'd like to know why - especially when the Taliban was precisely the type theocracy they want worldwide - it would be less of a cause celebre to the radicals than before.

Thanks for the link, James.

"Where are those weapons of mass destruction? They must be here someplace." -- G.W. Bush

UN resolutions, uncooperative with weapons inspectors, known to have WMD's in the past, establishing a democracy in the middle east, ridding the world of a tyrant, showing the world we are serious about what we say. It's fairly simple.

The muslims were pissed before we invaded because of our support for Israel and our general decadence.

I am also amazed that there are those who expect us to have every detail planned out in war. That is about as silly as having every play in a football game scripted before you go out. The dynamics of war and politics means you make up part it as you go along looking toward the overall goal. You adjust and adapt as conditions warrant. Plan to get out? Win first and that takes time.

NEWS: - Senate Approves Detainee Bill - Republicans' bill to ease pressure on military chaplains - Senate Could Vote on Parental Notification Bill by Friday - Senate Shies Away From Vote on Bolton - New U.S. top court term has......

Had we not gone into Iraq, would there still be a major Islamist terrorist threat? Of course.

Maybe. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, we'd very likely have captured or killed Bin Laden himself by now - how would that have changed the current threat? Not to mention the Taliban wouldn't be re-gaining strength in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

And even if you don't believe it would have changed the threat significantly, that's not a reason for having gone into Iraq in the first place. Or for supporting the idiots that keep us there with no plan for getting out.

Pissing off the remaining Muslims (as well as most of Europe) by invading Iraq, which never posed any threat to us and didn't pose any remaining threat to our allies, was not justifiable.

What about this is so hard for you Republican apologists to admit?