This foolishness aside, I believe the real reason can be found in classic battlefield strategy.  If the War on Terror claims the globe as its theater of operations and enemy combatants are those who promote terror, Iraq represented the enemy's exposed flank.  From a purely strategic standpoint, discarding for the sake of this post WMDs and torture chambers, Saddam's dictatorship was low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking.

It was the soft underbelly of the terrorists' worldwide front.  Tackling Kim Jong-il's North Korea or the mullahs of Iran would have required a full scale invasion against a much more sophisticated military machine in North Korea and much more homogenous society in Iran.  Saddam, in contrast, could do very little, relatively speaking, with his dilapidated military to confront the high-tech armament and amazing skill and training of the United States Armed Forces.  Likewise, he could not count on any widespread support of the Iraqi people to ward off our offensive since the vast majority of his own countrymen yearned to see him gone.

So what happens when a military force successfully exploits the weakest point of its enemy?  Fear and panic creep into their mindset and the enemy begins to fall apart.  We saw this first in Libya, and we're seeing flickering glimpses of it now in Egypt and Lebanon.  Freedom and democracy is the antidote to terror. President Bush knows this.

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.  The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Moreover, he and his advisors had the insight to perceive an Arab world rid of evil tyrants, the courage to make the hard choices necessary to give freedom a chance, and the persistent resolve required to see it through.

By no means is the end goal accomplished.  Yea, the forces of terror could still win this war if the agents of freedom acquiesce to the gut-wrenching hardships along the way.  On the other hand, events occurring on a daily basis in the Middle East give The Blogging Caesar hope and optimism that this world just may be birthing a new era of freedom in lands that have been shackled by tyranny for countless generations.

If history looks back on the decades just ahead and sees an Arab world enjoying a sustained period of freedom and democracy, history will also look back on the presidency of George W. Bush as a marvelous testimony to the power of right and on the United States as the greatest proliferator of liberty this world has ever known.

Some links via PoliPundit.

This was recorded at an anti-war rally in San Diego last year:

I want to talk today about how we're actually going to stop the occupation.  I don't have a plan, but I think there's some key strategies that we need to adopt, that are gonna make this more successful. And the first thing is that we need to support the resistance of Iraqis in Iraq.  These are people who are risking their lives to get the United States out of their country.  And we have to see them as our allies.  We have to see them as our main allies. Similarly, we have to support resistance in the US military. Soldiers, and you know, anyone – families who are actually opposing the war, we need to be on their side. If you recall, there's one time in the last 30 years when the US military machine was brought down, during Vietnam, and it was brought down because there was a fierce resistance in Vietnam, and because the soldiers were refusing to fight... (emphasis mine)

Those "resistance fighters" in Iraq are the ones killing scores of their fellow countrymen each week in an attempt to keep freedom and democracy from taking root there.  They are of the same ilk as the ones who flew planes into our buildings not so long ago.  They are terrorists, and they are viewed as allies by some in this country.

On the other hand, this was written by a United States soldier in Iraq:

I'm a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I spent most of 2003 in Kuwait and Iraq. I'm not a baby killer; I didn't destroy any mosques; I never abused or tortured anyone; and although I was never far from my weapon, I never had occasion to use it. I didn't join the military because I was poor, or because I wanted to kill people and break things.  And I wasn't a pawn in someone else's game.  I support our mission in Iraq. I volunteered to serve because I appreciate the rights that we all enjoy as Americans, and I realize that someone has to be prepared to defend those freedoms. I find it ironic that some choose to exercise those same freedoms by denigrating the efforts of those who risk their lives to defend them.  But I respect their right to do so. I'm not a politician.  I'm not going to ask you to support a particular cause or party. It's up to you to figure out where you stand. I'm not a recruiter.  I'm not here today to ask you to join the military; that is a very serious life decision that you will have to make on your own.  It's not for everyone. All I ask for is respect - for my fellow veterans, for our volunteer military, and for their families.  They deserve your support. Thank you.

There are two teams in America today when it comes to the foreign policy of the Bush administration.  Each is represented in part by these two quotes.  I know most opposition to the war in Iraq is not as radical as the first quote suggests. Even so, of the soldier and the protestor, I feel blessed to be on the soldier's team.  He goes on to quote another soldier, Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC:

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

Amen.

Hat tip: DJ Drummond.

Domestically, the President has shown the desire to take on the hard problems our country faces.  In stark contrast to many previous presidents and most politicians, President Bush does not and will not defer difficult problems to those who follow him.  Many of these issues are long-standing, yet crumbling, pillars of our government that are enshrined in an ivory tower of political fear.  No one wants to deal with them because of the political consequences.  That is a fear this president does not know.

That's really the key to this man's presidency, and that's why he has made so many political enemies.  He simply is not content to tread presidential water by addressing superficial issues that make good sound bites but don't accomplish anything substantive.  He is willing to tackle the tough and fundamental "bedrock" issues of our day, regardless of the political consequences.  As a result, can anyone doubt that some rather large changes are in store in the near future?

On foreign policy, Bush's resolve and intestinal fortitude have served this country, and our world, well.  What an amazing sight to see an Iraqi woman, freed from tyranny after nearly two generations, hug the mother of a brave American soldier who died to make that freedom a reality.  The Bush doctrine of peace through freedom is the right way to best the terrorism that threatens us all. His vision of peace is surely ambitious - some would say completely unattainable.  Yet, many felt the same way about Ronald Reagan's vision of a world without Soviet communism and the Warsaw Pact.  When strength of character and firmness of resolve accompany lofty visions, sometimes those visions outlive the obstacles that would defeat them.  President Bush embodies such traits.

Though I wish to sound like more than just a partisan Bushie, I honestly find it hard to temper my enthusiasm in response to the President's speech.  Reading through the transcript in preparation for this post, I felt an intense mixture of pride in our country, optimism for the future, and an abiding gratefulness to God that George W. Bush is my president.  As surely as the President closed his address with the words, "May God bless America," God has already blessed her immensely by ordaining his presidency.

For liberals like Kerry, the next word is invariably "but."  "But the Sunni turnout will lead to civil war."  "But the raging anger at the US (which is proportionally miniscule when compared to the overall Iraqi population) still exists."  But this and but that.  The attempt is to state the obvious - the elections were a good thing - and then undermine that positive with sometimes fabricated, most of the time exaggerated, negatives.

For me and others who have supported our actions in Iraq, the connecting word is "and."  Only a radical few would try to characterize these elections as the end all, be all indication of success.  We too understand that the encouraging and symbolically monumental events last Sunday are but a baby step in a long process of developing peace and democracy in Iraq.  It is a process that has seen many such baby steps already, thanks in large part to the United States military and the decisions of our President, and will see many more to come.

The key is that, while achieving the goal may still be perhaps years away and utter peace may never be attained there, the Iraqi people are on the right path. The next few chapters of post-Saddam Iraq's history are still to be determined. Civil war certainly could be in the cards and lead to a protracted process of suffering and terror.  On the other hand, the path to full democracy may not so bad.  Either way, now that the United States has given them the chance at democratic freedom, it will be up to the Iraqi people themselves which route that path will take.  If Sunday is any foretaste of the future, I'd say the prognosis is bright.

Now, as much as ever, Americans need to be united in our support for a free and democratic Iraq.  We can debate for four score and seven the merits of taking out Saddam, but the circumstances today make that argument moot. What is important for America going forward is that we be catalysts for change, not cowards of convenience  The truth is that, without our presence in Iraq, terror would thwart this budding democracy.  Abandoning the Iraqis prematurely, as Senator Ted Kennedy seems to desire, would inevitably turn the liberals' predictions of chaos and failure into reality and transform an historic opportunity into a sequel to Saddam's reign of cruelty.

Surely Mr Kennedy must know this, yet he still trumpets ever-so-loudly that we are part of the problem.  Senator Kennedy, we are part of the problem - the terrorists' problem.  The other part is the iron will millions of Iraqi citizens displayed on Sunday.  Together the fine men and women of the United States military and the exuberent, determined men and women of Iraq can see democracy bloom and flourish over there.  I know it would handcuff your party's political designs, but that really wouldn't be so bad, would it Teddy?