I almost always agree with Matthew Yglesias, although I don't write 1% as well. Unusually, I disagree almost completely with his latest post on Iraq.

Yglesias writes "
1. The sactions/inspections regime was not sustainable over the long term.

2. Sometime after the sanctions/inspections regime collapsed, Saddam Hussein would acquire nuclear weapons and this would have an extremely adverse impact on the world.

As a result, it was necessary to implement a regime change policy of some sort at some point before Saddam's acquisition of nuclear weapons. There was, however, not only no reason this had to be done Bush's way, but (more important, in retrospect, from my point-of-view) there was really no reason it had to be done on Bush's timetable."

This doesn't really make much sense to me. What was wrong with Bush's approach, given that one is in favor of an invasion sooner or later. The main criticism I have heard was that Bush went in bilaterally (with the UK) instead of building a coalition. If a better invasion means a UN approved invasion with a large coalition, I don't see how that could be possible and a continued effective inspections regime could be impossible. the logic seems backward. Another problem with Bush's invasion was sending too few soldiers. This problem was not just due to Rumsfeld's egomaniacal stubborness. As noted, the US does not have all that many more deployable soldiers. Ygleisais would propose introducing a draft to prepare for an invasion of Iraq in the future. He must know that this falls under the category of "shit that ain't gonna happen."

Yglesias links to Daniel Davies, who basically argues that it would have been better to wait so that the US might have a non moronic president. Instead it seems to me that Davies hopes for an oxymoronic president, who would be willing to wait until the time was right and then use decisive force. Clinton was a very smart president, but the Kosovo war did not seem to be a brilliant operation at the time, totally aside from bombing the Chinese embassy. I think the reason is that Clinton is by inclination moderate and knew that there was not a compelling enough reason to invade for US public opinion to accept many casualties. This lead to a war of attrition until Milosevic caved. The analogous approach to Iraq would be bombing until hell froze over.

I guess my basic question is how long are you prepared to wait for a ground war of choice, started by someone who made it to the White House, and who is not an idiot ? I'd say it would have been quicker to bomb Saddam Hussein until he was as reasonable as Matthew Yglesias or Daniel Davies.