Even if the Iraqi Parliament approves this, it is not binding on the United States without ratification by Congress (something that is unlikely to ever come to a vote), so we may very well see President-Elect Obama discarding it (or more likely renegotiating it) when he comes into office. It is not a treaty (only Congress can ratify one), it is an agreement that carries the force of treaty until a regime change (such as when President-Elect Obama is inagurated). He may leave it alone, but it isn't likely given the pressure he is going to receive from those who supported his campaign which was partially based on a quick withdrawal.

I see this conflict as a mixed bag of positive and negative results:

Positive:

• Removal of a dictator whose offenses included support of terrorism (not necessarily Al Qaeda), torture of his own people, institutionalized rape, genocide and invasion of a peaceful neighboring nation without warning.
• Institution of a new government that allows free election and self-determination for its people, supports the diversity of ethnicities in Iraq, allows civil rights for minorities, allows more freedom of religion than the prior regime and supports rights for women.
• Creation of an Iraqi state which creates a stable presence in the Middle East to somewhat counter the extremists in Iran and Syria.
• Defeat of large numbers of Al Qaeda who came to Iraq to engage the coalition forces, gathering of intelligence on Al Qaeda's structure and using such to disrupt their operations elsewhere.
• Converting Iraq from an enemy of the United States to an ally.
• Enlightenment as to the inadequacy of relying solely on signal intelligence (electronic monitoring, radio intercept, etc.) as opposed to human intelligence (agents in country who can give eyewitness accounts). Human intelligence was all but eliminated under President Clinton as a cost savings measure, but this conflict shows how important it is.

Negative:

• Hundreds of Billions of Dollars spent without a like contribution from Iraq on rebuilding their nation (certainly, if we broke it, we should fix it, but what about what Mr. Hussein broke?).
• Loss of life: A given in any war and no less so in this one.
• Loss of momentum in Afghanistan (although the issue with Pakistan's border was just as much of a problem in 2002 as it is today).

Neutral:

• World reaction to the United States: Although they initially backed the action, when it didn't end quickly, the sentiment changed. The success of "Surge" strategy has helped with some of this as has the change of government in nations like France.

I believe that the positives do indeed outweigh the negatives and I support our efforts in Iraq, but if I had been President, I would likely have delayed entry into Iraq until Afghanistan had been settled, primarily because the United States military had been reduced in size during President Clinton's years in office and could no longer fulfill both missions effectively. I would have instead spent a few extra years building up that military and I would have asked Congress for a clear declaration of War. I may not have gotten it, but I would have forced them to make an appropriate stand. Actually, given the overwhelming support that the war had at the time that Congress had voted, it may have been likely that President Bush could have gotten a full declaration of War.

As to weapons of mass destruction, Sentator Rick Santorum stood on the Senate floor and read a list of over 500 weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq during the war. We know that the Weapons were in Iraq at one time because the United States sold/gave them to Iraq (back in the time when Iran was seen as a bigger threat, early 1980s). The cease fire resolution at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict (Desert Storm) required that Saddam Hussein account for all of these weapons (which he did not) and we know that a large convoy of trucks moved from Iraq to Syria in the days before the war (Iraqi weapons have been found in Syria since then). So we don't know whether or not many of them were simply moved. All that said, if Weapons of Mass Destruction were the only reason that the United States had to go to war, then I would have opposed it. It was only one of many reasons (see the removal of Saddam Hussein above for more).

Taking Pakistan as a slightly separate issue from Afghanistan, the big problem there is that it is a sovereign nation that we are allied with, that doesn't want our forces crossing the border, but cannot patrol its side of its border. As such, since the first day of the United States campaign in Afghanistan, Taliban forces and Al Qaeda forces freely crossed that border. Since the United States will not violate the sovereignty of an ally, we have little or no ability to prosecute Al Qaeda forces once they cross the border. If we had the ability to roll troops into Pakistan as a friendly support force, then we could see some finality in that conflict, but as it stands, that border could result in an ongoing presence for decades.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan