I went through the points raised in the comments to the post on “Why Not Iraq” below, and boiled them down to the list of ones I feel were the strongest (i.e. the ones that I felt had to be addressed to maintain my position).
# The war is unwinnable, because the insurgency is too powerful politically and militarily to be defeated within the time material resources and political will allow for the U.S. presence.
# The war is unwinnable because the Administration has no coherent plan.
# The war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the fight against terrorism.
# We are creating Islamist terrorists throughout the Middle East by occupying Iraq.
# The war used up money and manpower which could/should have been used to secure our borders, airports, and ports.
# The war has cost us allies in Europe and the Middle East, and damaged our standing and ability to lead in the world.
# Saddam was deterrable, and so controllable, unlike the Islamist fanatics likely to replace him.
# Containment was working, and so there was no need to invade.
# America’s image is not that of a country that launches preemptive wars.
# Going to war was a violation of the UN Charter, and the US conduct of the war has been a violation of the laws of war.
# The Administration’s case for the war was selective, inaccurate, and based more in supporting the Administration’s already-made decision than in guiding it.
# The pre-war planning ignored virtually all post-war issues, from the military to the political to the economic to the humanitarian.
I’ll plead bias, even though I did the best I could, and am open to ways that this list should be edited or changed. Take a look at them, and over the week, I’ll start responding to them one or two at a time, and a discussion will hopefully break out.