I’d have to summarize my view thusly: It’s doubtful that Saddam had NO relationship with various and sundry nasty guys from the middle east, being one himself. It was a means to assure his protection, and to spread around adequate feelings of Arabist/Islamist/Whateverist comraderie, so necessary to insure against the ever-present risk to his grip on power since the end of the first Gulf War. Not unlike similar alliances between various politicians here at home (who probably don’t really have any religious convictions one way or another), and the vast numbers of dogmatic religious denominations spread far and wide. (Does Rick Santorum really believe that homosexuals are a pox on humanity and a threat to the stability of marriage? Highly doubtful.)

It’s even possible to consider that no matter what course had been set in policy and diplomacy, we’d still have wound up at war with Hussein ultimately. Once Saddam came to realize that his regime was doomed, he might just have been nuts enough to attempt to draw a line in the sand, if only to save face among his counterparts and not be hacked to pieces by his own generals or citizens.

But crucially, the many examples set forth in the linked article were not made available to the public or adequately explained (meaning patiently I might add) to the general public. It was clear from virtually 9/12 that Bush had made up his mind, and that was going to be that, no matter that virtually the entire world (and a not insignificant portion of the American public) believed that the timing was bad. In the battle of marketing, Bush and his crew were epically inept. They relied on the same types of bluster so given to characters like Saddam himself, and so likely to elicit a response of “that guy’s frickin’ nuts.” Why the big rush? What were they hiding? It’s a natural enough reaction under the circumstances.

In the process of fumbling away world opinion and, yes, credibility, Bush lost substantial world support. And that is critical. It has made the difference between a war waged unilaterally and one with broad support. Allowing, almost willing the “Unilateralist” label upon the United States, Bush and the Iraq War have provided all the fodder for recruitment that extremists in the region could have desired. It fomented mistrust, if not disgust, within our traditional Western allies, and as such has weakened support for US policy. And of course that’s nothing compared to how it’s damaged the perception of the U.S. in middle eastern countries.

So it is not proper to make comparisons of our WWII experiences here. This is not the same thing; there’s certainly not the same broad coalition of men, money and resources — it’s largely just the U. S. and A. It needn’t have worked out this way. Had we taken the diplomatic process seriously enough (while doing so cynically, but that’s ok because it’s more about protocol than honesty in such cases) many nations currently resistant to our cause would have had little choice but to have jumped on the bandwagon. Why didn’t Bush have the patience to really make a case, rather than just several claims? That’s open to debate, but my own opinion is that he knew that Saddam would have sought, and perhaps gotten, compromise in order to save his skin. Bush wouldn’t have gotten his war then, and maybe he thinks that would have left a dangerous character in place. Me? I don’t know about that. But certainly Bush’s missteps have played directly into the extremists’ hands, whereas properly played, the whole conflict should not have done so.

In essence, I’m saying that a deft handler of the region would have known how to make Saddam into a poster child of what’s wrong, and convince PEOPLE THERE to do something about it while thinking the whole thing was their own idea. Instead, people perceived Bush and the U.S. as dangerous actors in their own right, however misinformed that opinion may be, and have sought the usual macho glory in fighting against us. These seekers of macho glory are now the danger we face, and their numbers are substantially higher than they would have been in virtually any alternative scenario.

I regret I’m not very skilled at expressing my viewpoint — I hope it’s more or less clear. Again, to summarize, if Bush knew how to lead, he’d have known how to make it “uncool” to be a jihadist against America, at least in some critical quarters. Instead he has done the opposite, and made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.

If I may add one more thought: Has anyone else noticed that after Bush came along, a host of equally wacky and scary guys have appeared on the international scene, all extremists and extraordinarily dumb? For example, Ahamadenijad, Chavez, Lula, and Turkmenbashi? I don’t think that’s a coincidence. America leads, people, and we have led the world down the Dangerous Nutjob path lately. All because a fractious group of crazies got extremely lucky on that sad day on 9/11. Can we please move off this trail? That is, if it’s not too late?