Blogoland

Yet another post-hoc rationalization for the Iraq invasion, by Christopher Hitchens. You have to understand that we invaded not because of WMD or Saddam's rape rooms or to spread freedom and love to every Muslim the world over, but because Iraq under Saddam would have certainly spiralled into chaos were we not to invade. I kid you not:

It never seemed to me that there was any alternative to confronting the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces. None of the many blunders in postwar planning make any essential difference to that conclusion. Indeed, by drawing attention to the ruined condition of the Iraqi society and its infrastructure, they serve to reinforce the point.

So you see, Iraq is in chaos now, but it doesn't really matter what we do in Iraq because it was always going to be a hopeless mess, and that means that it would've been even worse if we didn't go in and, therefore, justifies our invasion.

The reasoning of a madman.

UPDATE: Don't miss this fascinating roundtable (posted elsewhere) with the now-deceased Steven Vincent and a pack of apologists. Vincent was, of course, a hawk on Iraq but even he can't seem to stomach the reflexive hurrahism of the Happy Iraqers.