Points to Ponder

The following 14 points were taken from Michael Smerconish's Profiling for Peace.

The same questions have been put to numerous political figures in he past few weeks.

Admit or deny:

1. 9/11 was the work of radical Islam.
Yes

2. Post-9/11, there was a consensus to be "forward-leaning" with regard to radical Islam, meaning to be pre-emptive if needed to protect against further attack.
Yes

3. Iraq played no role in the events of 9/11.
Agreed. Saddam Hussein knew better than to strike at an enemy that routinely flew, unchallenged, over his airspace.

4. Iraq was nevertheless perceived by American and foreign military and intelligence operations to pose a threat based principally upon the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.
Agreed. Saddam was willing to jump on the Islamist, anti-Western bandwagon after 9/11.

5. Saddam's perceived possession of WMDs was the primary reason advanced by the Bush administration in support of the invasion of Iraq. Agreed, with modifications. Our invasion of Iraq was to prevent Saddam from de-stabilizing and exacerbating the political climate in the Middle East, as well as to establish a presence for our troops to launch further pre-emptive strikes.

6. It is now apparent that Saddam had no WMDs, meaning, the administration's predicate for going to war was faulty.
Disagreed. Saddam had either the actual WMDs, or the materials and equipment to manufacture them for several years. He was able to obfuscate the UN inspectors long enough to transport them to Syria and Iran.

7. Hussein was still an evil SOB. Agreed.

8. The fact that the administration was wrong does not mean the president lied on WMDs. The administration was "wrong" only because the intelligence gathering was faulty. See notes on "ABLE DANGER."

9. The war in Iraq is going poorly.
No war goes well. I am of the opinion that it is the role of the military to put themselves between harm and the civilian population. Ever since we supplanted the Taliban in Afghanistan with a democratic government and have occupied Iraq, there have been no further attacks on US soil by Islamist terrorists.

10. It is entirely possible that when all is said and done, we will have facilitated the replacement of Saddam with a leadership regime that is beholden to Iran and unfriendly to the U.S., albeit one that does not equal the evil of Saddam nor the type of threat that he could have become. Disagree. This statement is predicated on the belief that the regime in Iran will continue into the next generation. That an elected government in Iraq may not look favorably upon the US in the future is quite possible. The US has to deal with such governments all over the world.

11. Leaving Iraq now would embolden insurgents and terrorists.
Agreed.

12. Our presence in Iraq provides a rallying point for the insurgency and the radical Islamists. Agreed, but see question 9 for why this is a good thing.

13. Leaving Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal. Disagreed. Iraq is unstable and on the verge of civil war. Continued instability in the Middle East will create more opportunities for Islamist terrorists to strike at Western targets.

14. It's time for the administration to set a timetable to leave Iraq.
Disagree, with modification. The administration should set up a series of achievable goals that will allow the Iraqi government to stabilize. When these goals are achieved, our presence should be diminished and eventually nullified. For example, the US recently handed over control of a base in Najaf to the Iraqi military.

Finally, while not addressed in these questions, I believe it was wrong of the Bush administration to shove an American-style constitution on the Iraqi people. I believe, given the overwhelming religious climate in the Middle East, a more Turkish model would have better served Iraq. Like Iraq, Turkey is a Muslim-majority state. Under the Turkish constitution, a secular state is mandated and strongly-defended by the military.