The Redhunter

I've never really received a clear response to this answer. "Are you saying we should have invaded North Korea or Iran? That we should have destroyed Hezbollah?" I ask. Some say yes, but others I've spoken with demur, and start off with how we're distrated in Iraq and haven't been "dealing" with Iran or North Korea.

Most of the time they simply say that we should apply the same old tried-and-failed techniques of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and "working with the international community." Some have told me that because of Iraq now everyone hates us so we can't use diplomacy.

I therefore try to question these people, and get them to realize that if all they want us to do is to apply diplomatic and economic pressure, coupled with military threats, then whether we had gone into Iraq or not doesn't make any difference.

Further, as world events have shown, it is a fiction to think that because of Iraq we've lost all diplomatic clout. We're able to work well with the Europeans with regard to Iran, for example, despite our differences on Iraq. And ventures such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) are unhamptered as well.

Air Strikes?

The military forces we have up in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly ground forces. Our Navy, and most of our Air Force, isn't doing a whole lot other than providing "just-in-case" support. When people say that because of Iraq we are "stretched thin" they have a point, but only with regards to ground forces and the logistical trail required to support them.

We might have to strike Iran or North Korea at some point, the latter probably before the former. The effectiveness of such strikes is problematical, and both nations are likely to respond in some fashion, as they won't just "sit there and take it". Air strikes on Hezbollah would achieve little and would only give them a cause to send forth their terrorists to hit us.

We'd face the same opposition to air strikes from the same group of suspects, domestic and foreign, regardless of whether we'd gone into Iraq or not. The American left is getting all bent out of shape now over the prospects of our hitting Iran or North Korea. Does anyone seriously believe that had we not gone into Iraq they would approve of such action? Ditto with nations such as France, Russia, and China.

Either way, then, it ishard to see how our invasion of Iraq has made air strikes on anyone more difficult to do.

Ground Invasion

So do the "should have dealt with a more important threat" people think that we should have gone into North Korea, Iran, or Lebanon with ground forces? Iraq is child's play compared to any of those options.

North Korea. likely already has a half-dozen or so nuclear weapons. Most likely they are designed to be delivered by short-range missile or aircraft. It is not likely we could get all of them in an air strike, and at any rate we could not be sure of it. Worst case is that after the initial US air assault they use them to hit South Korea or Japan. Even if that did not occur, North Korea has approximately 500 large artillery guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems hidden in underground bunkers just across the border from South Korea. They also have 500-600 Scuds that could hit the South. The South Korean capital, Seoul, lies right on the border. The North Koreans could literally lob artillery shells into downtown Seoul day and night. Yes we would - eventually - take out those guns. But in the meantime tens of thousands of South Koreans would be killed. Happy now?

Iran.has a population of 68 million(CIA Factbook), as against Iraq's 26.7. Iran is 1.636 million sq km, or about the size of Alaska. Iraq is 432,162 sq km, or double the size of Idaho. Just mutiply our troubles with Iraq by two or three. A ground invasion of Iran is simply not realistic.

With Hezbollah, air strikes would undoubtably kill many terrorists, but I think would only have a marginal effect on Hezbollah's effectiveness. You simply can't destroy a large terrorist gang by bombing. Because they place their facilities near civilian population centers, event the most careful of attacks would involve killing many civilians, which would in turn be exaggerated by media outlets such as al-Jazeera. The purpose of a ground assault would be to achieve what? Yes we could kill a great many terrorists, but not all of them, and what would our "exit strategy" be? To create a viable, terrorist-free government in Lebanon? As if that would be significantly easier than Iraq.

Trading One Set of Protesters for Another

Actually, most of the protesters would be the same. ANSWER and Code Pink would still be doing there thing. But instead of a guy in a blue polo shirt approaching me to say that "we should have dealt with Iran", it would be a guy in a brown blazer telling me that "no, we should have hit Iraq." No matter what you do, someone will complain.