Maliki: Iraq welcomes ties with all nations except Israel

Those are good points, but I think that Israel then was a lesser concern than Saddam's expansion into Kuwait and possibly taking over Saudi Arabia's oil.

My hindsight is easy, but the main lesson that we have learned, hopefully, by our complicated experiences in Central/West Asia, is that we Americans have zero chance of changing that intractable Islamic/Muslim mind-set in that blighted (except for minerals-oil) arena.

They will remain Muslims/Islamists first and foremost (I think the order/sequence of those two terms is pretty meaningless) and will remain a long-term threat to the welfare of our U.S.A....despite the smiling Maliki and his Afghan neighbor Karzai.

Both are inherently two-faced triple dealers. Surely no one questions that. The sooner we're out of there and in the most complete way possible, the better off we'll be......no matter how long we drag out this "drawdown" or whatever it's called; if we stay mired there for another fifty years or more, the net end will always be a malignant Islamist tumor, just waiting to metastasize.

We must contain, contain, contain that sullen, alien part of the world.

They have nothing more to contribute to Civilization. Hammurabi and Cyrus were outstanding, cuneiform tablets have been valuable for insight. Apparently the wisdom of the Greeks and -Indian- algebra..."al-gebra"(?) ....were preserved for us by the Arabs during those darker centuries.....but that's it.

Was Alexander the turning point? He finally retreated after overextending his Armies.

Pace the Brits who came into the arena there for their own reasons; the Soviets threw up their hands, lets now cut our losses, in turn.

We must accept that we're at war with Islam.....however smiling their reps may be from time to time. And that War is best fought on the Cold War experience. Islam is in no rush. We Americans should be steadfast also.

Proud Kafir

Was there anybody around at the time who opposed the invasion of Iraq for the proper Islamic reasons (i.e. enabling a Shia client state of Iran), as opposed to the Leftist Code Pink anti-war activists? I don't recall.

Most of Hugh's articles on the subject, for instance, was after the invasion and occupation of Iraq had happened. I don't recall seeing him post any opposition to the invasion before it actually happened, and the reason was simple - Saddam was a threat to countries like Israel, and a potential supplier of chemical weapons to Jihadi groups other than al Qaeda. For instance, few weeks before the invasion, Abu Nidal was gunned down in Baghdad, so even aside from the WMD reason, the fact that Iraq was still an active supporter of Jihad was a good reason.

In retrospect, I think that the US should have gone for the 'lower hanging fruit' first - first targeted Iran, alongside Afghanistan, and in this, they would have gotten the more enthusiastic support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and even Iraq, and opposition from Syria. For the Soviets, both Iraq & Syria were bigger customers, so they may have actually gone along w/ the US on this. They could have ousted this Iranian regime and then seen both Syria and Hizbullah implode. But no occupation - either in Afghanistan nor Iran - just bomb them enough to get their regimes overthrown (like happened in Iraq), and then take down Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so on

Following that