Mr. Barnes: my apologies for not adhering to your wishes. However, after reading the last series of posts from yourself, JaTo, Eternalone, and others, all of which have been relatively good IMO, there might be some benefit in looking at the Bush administrationâ??s record on Iraq from three distinct perspectives: moral, legal, and military.

Given the current state of available information and widely varying opinions on what is right and wrong, and given the (sometimes purposeful) ambiguity of various U.N. resolutions, it is highly unlikely in a forum like this to come to an easy agreement on the â??moralâ?? and â??legalâ?? questions.

But looking at it from the military angle, I think there is enough common ground for objective-minded people to make a reasonable determination as to whether or not Bushâ??s decisions have resulted in success in Iraq; by considering the agreed upon facts concerning the reason for military action and what I believe is the undisputed outcome of it.

So letâ??s look at the military angle assuming that everything Bush has maintained about the need for it, is true â?¦ Iâ??m sure JaTo and Eternalone will correct me if I misrepresent the Bush position. And for my purposes I am defining â??military action against Iraqâ? to include everything from the collection of intelligence and the decision-making processes that led up to the invasion, as well as the invasion and subsequent occupation up to today.

The Bush Case for invasion:
1) The threat of Iraqi WMD being used to destabilize the region or for attacks on the U.S.A., was the primary reason for U.S. sponsored actions within the U.N. Security Council, and was in fact the primary reason for proposing U.N. military action against Iraq.
2) Hussein had a prior history of capability in producing WMD and had in fact used them; clearly a pattern that represented a threat.
3) Numerous U.N. resolutions over many years had failed to eliminate the threat of Iraqi WMD
4) The Hussein regime had regularly and often confounded the attempts of UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC to determine the actual status of any WMD
5) U.N. inspectors found no evidence of WMD, however the Bush position was that the lack of evidence about the existence of WMD was in no way evidence that they did not exist; and that they in fact probably did, because Iraq was offering no proof that they had been disposed of
6) At some point Bush determined that the possible existence of WMD represented a significant enough threat to the Region and to the United States, that military action, with our without explicit U.N. sanction, was a viable and required course of action
7) This decision was made with the help of existing intelligence that offered compelling circumstantial evidence that very strongly suggested WMD existed.
8) Bush made no statements to indicate that this intelligence actually included the whereabouts of WMD; although had their whereabouts been known, this would be a legitimate exclusion for security purposes
9) Whether or not Bush statements about this intelligence were intended to mislead, there seems to be no evidence that he at any time claimed to be in possession of intelligence that proved with absolute 100% certainty that WMD existed
10) The invasion against Iraq was launched to secure the region and the U.S. from the threat of Iraqi WMD
11) To this point in time, there have been no discoveries of Iraqi WMD, or proof that they did or did not exist.

IMO the decision to invade was seriously flawed, and the subsequent military action has been a failure; as follows:

The stated purpose was to eliminate the threat of WMD. Launching an invasion for this purpose without knowing where the WMD were located, was bound to fail as they would be virtually impossible to locate and seize in a timely fashion â??? especially given the size and nature of the country, and given that the opening salvos were by air. This should have been patently clear to military strategists.

On the other hand, if in fact their location was known, then the military action must be considered a failure because not one WMD was brought under control. This is unacceptable given the resources available to the U.S. military.

The stated purpose was to eliminate the threat of WMD. I think it logical to extend that to mean that the purpose was also to verify the elimination of the threat of WMD.

From that perspective the military action must also be considered a failure, because there has been no such verification. Instead, there is the continued assertion that WMD in fact do exist, although their location remains unknown. Considering the possibility that no WMD ever did exist, the verification of that fact would seem to be critical.

The opportunity to verify the absence of WMD under the current chaotic and unsafe conditions in Iraq is understandably not a military priority; however, nor is it possible for civilian inspectors to be doing this work.

A more prudent course of action would have been to let the U.N. inspectors do their work (locate or verify disposal), while maintaining an all-out intelligence gathering effort to in fact locate them; at which point an invasion would have had IMO a much greater opportunity for success in eliminating the threat of WMD.

Bottom line IMO:
Assuming the existence of Iraqi WMD, the military action has increased the threat to the region and to the U.S. because we no longer know who controls them â??? this is a net reduction in critical information.

Assuming that WMD did not exist, there is now a reduced opportunity to ever prove their non-existence, as a direct result of the military action against Iraq; and given the level of destruction and upheaval, it is conceivable that any evidence that may have existed, could very well be lost or destroyed making future investigation less viable.