I do not post here too much anymore because it is just re-hashing the same old arguments, and it has become boring even for me.  But for arguments sake, and the 5 year annivesary of the war, I will post this response.  To understand where we are we must understand where we came from, and where we are going.

My opposition to the war is well known on this board.  But the reasons why have been somewhat distorted.  I opposed entry into the war because, if the pretext of national security, or interest is stripped away (i.e. Saddam had/could have/was planning to have WMD, Saddam had/could have had ties to al Qaeda and was partly responsible for 9/11), then there is not much to recommend the war from a conservative political/philosophical point of view.  The rationale quickly came to be we have to fight this war to promote democracy (since democracies end war) or free the oppressed peoples of Iraq or change the tenor and tone of radical Islam; all very left-wing, or at least utopian, ideals.  The silly hippies that say Save Darfur or Free Tibet use the same rhetorical devices without advocating the use of force, which makes them sound foolish and naïve.  So Bush just gave some muscle to those hippie ideals and the hippies hate him for it.

We do live in a Bizarro world when purported conservatives defend the need to democratize backward civilizations, and left-wingers see the need in opposing them.  I could understand leftist opposition to the Vietnam War since that war was fought to contain communism, something many on the Left self-identified with at the time, or because of the draft, which forced those left-wing idealists to fight against their ideal—communism.  But now it seems like the Left, in this country, is reflexively anti-war, as the liberals have not responded to Bush's echoes of Lenin, Mao, or Che's calls for revolutionary warfare.

By contrast the Right seems to be reflexively pro-military, no matter how or for what purpose the military is used.  Building schools—sure, let us use the Army, they are heroes after all.  So the debate over why the war was fought is an important one, first in order to find out where support/opposition breaks down along ideological lines, and secondly for strategic purposes, i.e. what to do with Iraq once Saddam is gone. Many conservatives, and posters here, clung (and still cling) to the notion that Saddam was a threat.  I still remain unconvinced of that, but the point is moot.  Saddam's regime was ended almost five years ago, and Saddam himself was put to death.  Yet American troops remain in Iraq, and remain under fire there, so this war is about much more than Saddam or even terrorism. 

Partly this is due to bungling by the administration post-war, but also partly due to the lack of a coherent strategy.  Conservatives are right in one thing; this war, besides being a war for leftist ideals, is intrinsically linked to 9/11. But not because of any links to al Qaeda.  Rather, it is because 9/11 did change things, it changed America's perception of itself.  Not because a ragtag band of Islamic fanatics could pose any more danger than simply being a nuisance to the US (seriously if radical Islamists cannot pose anything more than a nuisance to Israel after 40 years, could they pose a more serious threat to the US), but because American insecurity was exposed.  For the first time in almost 200 years, we are told, the American homeland was attacked by a foreign source.  Rome had been sacked, etc. and culprits must be punished.  Americans have always had some insecurity and confusion about their place in the world—whether Manifest Destiny, empire, and global power were natural outgrowths of American ideals, or if we should just turn our backs, and look inward.

After 9/11, because of this insecurity about American power, the Bush administration perceived that the US would be perceived as weak and vacillating unless something was done militarily, with force and decisiveness.  So like most insecure states, and people, we overreacted, with strategic incohenrence about democracy promotion, and Iraq was the "logical" target for this flawed thinking.  After all Iraq was already beaten by the US in one war, and Saddam was allowed to live and stay in power only through American generosity.  His continual presence and sometimes defiance though was an irritant to the neoconservatives, since it served as a constant reminder of American insecurity.  It was a happy coincidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by radical Islamists, and so to show those Islamists who was really boss, why not take out the irritant, who also happened to be Muslim. And what better way to promote democracy then to take out Saddam; kill two birds with one stone--end American insecurtiy, and promote democracy. 

In the place of Saddam, we were told, would bloom the first Arab democracy and this will bring hope, which will spread across the Middle East like a wildfire.  But, like so many other leftist revolutions, this one was flawed in its conception, as well as its execution.  Instead we are left with an unknown entity in Iraq, bogged down in hopeless nation-building, allying with our enemies of yesteryear, involving ourselves in confusing domestic politics; all in the hope that Iraq will turn out?different  This will go on for several more years, perhaps decades, no matter who is elected in November.  The only presidential candidate that was consistent in his views was Ron Paul; a conservative who opposed the war based on conservative rationale.  Obama is a liberal who opposes the war, which is liberal. That means he will not fight for his ideals, which makes him weak and vacillating.  Hillary switched her position which makes her a cynical politician, and McCain is a Republican who supports a liberal war.

None of these candidates have the answer, and the war has not solved the problems it was supposed to.  America is still insecure, perhaps more so because of the war than before.  The perception is still there that the US is weak, that it can be bogged down, and that an Albatross can be thrown around its neck.  Iraq is chaotic and messy, and far from being a democratic entity, and the Middle East has not become more democratic.  The use of force is a delicate matter, not to be taken lightly, especially by an insecure state. Perhaps now America is more reluctant to use force in the future, and that would be the biggest tragedy of all.