“It is now evident that Saddam Hussein’s possession of vast quantities of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is about as likely as Mars having canals, complete with gondolas and singing gondoliers.  ...  Since Saddam’s WMD were one of the principal stated reasons for this strategically curious war, their absence is something more than a social faux pas. Were the American and British publics, as Pat Buchanan puts it, lied into war? If they were, it would not be the first time. In Britain, the practice goes back at least as far as the 18th century and the War of Jenkin’s Ear. Americans were lied into World War I by cartoons of German soldiers bayoneting Belgian babies and into Vietnam by a Tonkin Gulf torpedo boat attack that never happened.  ...  It may be – though I doubt it – that our intelligence agencies really believed Saddam had all that stuff [WMD]. But even if that is what they reported to the decision-makers, the decision-makers should have known better to swallow it.”

Mr. Lind says that the U.S. should simply withdraw from Iraq, that this “will not be a defeat for America, because America never had any interests at stake in Iraq in the first place. ... the notion that Iraq constituted a threat to American security was pure invention. Genuine threats to American security may arise in a post-state Mesopotamia, but we have already created that monster and we will have to live with it.  ...  An American withdrawal from Iraq will be a defeat for the neocon clique that started the war in the first place. To that I say, ‘Hurrah!’ The sooner the neocons are defeated and driven from power, the less the chance that American soldiers will be sent to die in more unnecessary and strategically counterproductive wars.”

“Bush Administration statements saying that Saddam was working with al Qaeda turned out to be nonsense. Now, however, thanks to the fact that America destroyed the Iraqi state, Mesopotamia is acting as a magnet to Islamic non-state fighters of every stripe. We opened Iraq’s door to all our worst enemies.  ...  The official answer [to this problem] ... is to ‘stay the course.’ Having turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists, we need to stay there until we fight and defeat them. This is not likely to work. The problem is that our presence in Iraq does not merely draw terrorists – it generates them. The American occupation of Iraq is the same kind of priceless gift to Osama and company that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender in World War II was to master Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. It is the enemy’s best recruiting poster.
“A better answer – there is no really good answer, other than not to have destroyed the Iraqi state in the first place – is to get out ...”

“Since Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and was not working with non-state, Fourth Generation forces (aka ‘terrorists’), what are the real reasons America attacked Iraq? For oil? For Israel? For world dominion? Everyone speculates, because the official answers don’t make sense.”

He says America’s foreign policy has been “captured by a gang of ignorant and reckless adventurers.” He refers to “neo-con led follies.”

He recommends planning for a retreat from Iraq. “The neo-cons in the Bush administration and their toadies in the Pentagon will no doubt howl if the military starts contingency planning for a forced withdrawal. Listen up, guys: do it anyway. You don’t have to tell them. Just make sure the plan is in the file.”

“... multiculturalism is the death of states. ... ... states that tolerate, or worse, encourage multiple cultural loyalties – as multiculturalism commands – become battlegrounds.”

“Every tactical success merely moves us closer to giving Iran a new ally in the form of a restored Iraqi state under Shiite domination. The more tactical successes we win, the worse our strategic situation gets.”

“ ‘Supporting the troops’ is just another dodge. The only way to support the troops when a war is lost is to end the war and bring them home.”

“One of the rituals attending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when our opponents score a goal, is for an American general to ... announce ... that ‘we face a thinking enemy.’ Wow. Who ever would have imagined that the enemy might think and learn?”

“... more than 500,000 Moslems invade Europe [as immigrants] every year across the Mediterranean. Millions of Iraqi Sunnis will attempt to join that migration.”

“The answer is breathtaking in its cynicism: so the retreat from Iraq happens on the next president's watch. That is why we still fight.”

“... invasion by immigrants who do not acculturate is more dangerous than invasion by the Army of a foreign state.”

“The Post reported that, ‘Some of the American soldiers taunted the detainees by asking them, “Can you say Abu Ghraib?” ’ So much for winning at the moral level.”

“I somehow doubt that history will accept the Bush administration’s Newspeak name for the invasion of Iraq, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom.’ Might ‘Operation Duke of Alba’ be a more credible substitute?”

“In the real world, ‘diversity’ is a synonym for Fourth Generation war on your own soil.”

“How long will it be before al Qaeda and other Islamic non-state forces make their own alliances with the drug gangs and people smugglers who are experts in getting across America’s southern border?”

“How can a state be legitimate when its government is a foreign creation propped up by foreign troops?”

“Strategically, Islamic immigration is a far greater threat to Europe than Al Qaeda’s terrorism.”

“By invading and occupying Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us, ... we have made America into a monster.”

“An occupying American army can protect an election, but it cannot create a state.”

“Invasion by immigration easily can be more dangerous than invasion by a foreign army.”

“The rest of the world can see the hypocrisy, even if what passes for America’s ‘leaders’ cannot.”