Fareed Zakaria's been one of my favorite commentators and it's been a while since I've quoted him on the blog.   Via Daniel Drezner, I came across this FANTASTIC essay by Zakaria that captures many of my thoughts / opinions / reflections about Gulf War II -

...Saddam was an erratic, unpredictable leader who had been actively working against the United States and its interests--and peace in the region--for two decades. That meant he was a looming threat. Given the collapsing sanctions regime, at some point the United States would have to decide to move in one direction or the other. It could either welcome Saddam back into the community of nations and let him do what he would as a free agent.

...in the end, you have to decide whether to support the policy the president is pursuing--not the variation of it you wish he were pursuing. And I decided that, while timing and circumstances were not perfect, getting rid of one of the most ghastly regimes in the world, one that was a continued threat to U.S. interests, was worth supporting. Morality and realpolitik came together in the case against Saddam

...since we are listing mistakes, the biggest one many opponents of the war are making is to claim that Iraq is a total distraction from the war on terrorism. In fact, Iraq is central to that conflict. I don't mean this in the deceptive and dishonest sense that many in the Bush administration have claimed. There is no connection between Saddam's regime and the terrorists of September 11. But there is a deep connection between his regime and the terrorism of September 11. The root causes of Islamic terrorism lie in the dysfunctional politics of the Middle East, where failure and repression have produced fundamentalism and violence. Political Islam grew in stature as a mystical alternative to the wretched reality--secular dictatorships--that have dominated the Arab world. A new Iraq provides an opportunity to break this perverse cycle. The country is unlikely to become a liberal democracy any time soon. But it might turn out to be a pluralistic state that gives minorities limited protections, allows for some political participation, and has a reasonably open society. That would be a revolution in the Arab world.

...The right lesson of Iraq so far is not that nation-building must fail, but rather that President Bush's approach to it, unless corrected, will fail. The right lesson is not that U.S. military intervention always ruptures alliances and creates an enraged international public, but rather that this particular intervention did. Most important, it is not that American power aggressively employed does more harm than good. Rather, the right lesson is that American power, because it is so overweening, must be used with extraordinary care and wisdom. Most of the world's problems--from aids to the Israeli-Palestinian issue--would be better served with more American intervention, not less. But, because of the blunders in Iraq, it is possible that most of the world, and far too many Americans, will draw the wrong lesson on this final point as well.

While I agree with his arguments that some (many?) things could have been done better, I still have some issue with folks who consider the current state a complete failure.    I think this is buttressed by 2 systemic problems many commentators have -

• What's the baseline? -- by practically any historical standard, the Coalition invastion of a California-sized, 25M population nation with fewer than 1000 casualties a full year into the campaign is an startling achievement.   In the area of Rebuilding / Reconstruction, for example, Germany waited some 7 yrs before elections.   On the topic of exit strategy, the only 3 completely unqualified successful nation building exercises - Germany, Japan, S. Korea all have very large US presence today despite a sizable % of each population wanting us out  (most in Germany;  perhaps least in S. Korea).    My point isn't to whitewash over mistakes made in Iraq - it's to point out what a messy task we've undertaken and to recognize that failures shouldn't be weighed against a perfection standard.   Iraq won't be Switzerland anytime soon but it's certainly on a positive trajectory (Belmont Club provides a chilling example of how Fallujah could have turned out, for ex;   Amir Taheri reports on the political progress)
• Media bias - this is a tired topic on my blog BUT, lets just say that it's the little things rather than the car bombs that set the long term path for Iraq  (for ex., see good news from Iraq - http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/06/good-news-from-iraq-part-4.html)

Given the current state of affairs - it's hard to imagine a BETTER forward strategy than the one we're pursuing.   Thought we needed a UN resolution?   Well, we've got one now.   Think we need more boots on the ground?  Well, we're on a path towards creating more Iraqi boots.   Think the CPA is illegitimate?   Well, by June 30th, we're taking a big step towards providing the Iraqi's government they consider legitimate.  

---

UPDATE - via Dean Esmay, excellent chart tracking progress of Iraq vs. German post-war reconstruction

---