http://news.bostonherald.com/international...articleid=48572

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/

If there is anywhere in the world that deals with thye problem of terrorists on a daily basis its Israel. Do the views in this report :

Change your views on the validity of the War on Iraq theory?

Reinforce your views on the validity of the war on Iraq theory?

Have no effect on your views of the war on Iraq theory?

Why?

No change in my belief we did the right thing in Iraq.

I'm not thrilled with what seems to be poor planning for the aftermath, but that doesn't negate the wisdom of taking SH out and helping to establish a free Iraq.

I don't see why we should mind that terrorists are being drawn to Iraq from 'all over the world'. I'd much rather fight them there, with all our military might, than to sit back and wait or them to strike again here at home.

Well, for starters, it might be useful to state what the "War in Iraq theory" actually is - I suspect everyone has their own ideas.

I am not surprised by this report, and I tend to agree with its analysis.

I speak as one who reluctantly supported the Iraq War in the first half of 2003, after initial scepticism. I was persuaded by the "evidence" of direct tangible threat from Saddam-era Iraq itself, not by theories on what might happen if Iraq gave or sold weapons to terror groups.

Now that evidence has been more-or-less completely discredited, I view the situation in Iraq as a mess of US/UK making (no disrespect to the Aussies, but thir contingent is too small to take much of the blame), which we are now duty bound to clean up.

I don't especially blame Bush or Blair for being suckered into thinking the threat was real - after all, everyone else was too, including the opponents of war. I do blame them for their zealous insistence that war, now, was the only possible option. Not a reason for prosecution or impeachment, just are reason to think twice before voting for them again.

Unlike most Americans, my worldview was not shattered by 9-11. I viewed it as a dreadful atrocity, and I still have tremendous protective feelings towards Americans generally and New Yorkers in particular - I don't want to see it happen again.

But it was, ultimately, a terrorist attack, and I think it is a mistake to view terrorism as a military problem with military solutions. I see it essentially as a law enforcement issue, particularly in respect of pre-emption. Kill terrorists after they have killed, if you must, but what's wrong with arresting them beforehand.

Britain did not bomb Czechoslovakia every time the IRA used Semtex, much less did so before they used Semtex to prevent the risk that Semtex might come into IRA possession, or even that they might try to build new Semtex factories after the old ones had been destroyed.

This is essentially the logic that remains behind the Iraq War, after the other reasons have been proved wrong. I have never bought into the post-justification that we were right to fight because of what we have since learned about how many of his own people Saddam murdered, since it does not drive our policy towards umpteen other murderous dictators. If it's a valid reason, why are Iran and N Korea top of the to-do list, and not Zimbabwe and Tibet? And if the scale of state murders is not the reason to get on the list, then it can't suddenly become valid when talking about Iraq.

If it's an "Axis of Evil", there are more or similarly evil regimes than Iran and North Korea. And if it's an "Axis of People We Don't Like", let's say so and stop the posturing.