The invasion of Iraq was a huge blunder that had no internationally recognised necessity at the time and still doesn't. It hasn't satisfied and it looks extremely doubtful that it will satisfy any of its stated aims (1. WMD, 2. Democracy).
Iraq also had no links to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda seem to be a loosely organised group of fanatical Islamics that are as much a problem to the Middle Eastern states as they are to the West. Go after Al Qaeda by all means, it's absoluetly stupid however classify whole populations as terrorists.
You claim that 'the only option is to seek it out and destroy it - ruthlessly and aggressively.' Funnily enough, Bin Laden is still free and seemingly of little importance nowadays, while all the resources that could have been looking for him are busy oppressing 25 million people. Who exactly is being seeked out in Iraq anyway that was linked to terror???? Who is being seeked out in Saudi arabia (weren't the hijackers from there????)
'Had the US not invaded Iraq there is every likelihood we would be in at least as much as, if not more peril, than we are now.' Peril? This isn't exactly a clash of civilisations, we've had 3 major terrorist events around the world in 3 years. There will always be nutjobs with an axe to grind, fanatics by definition are a minority and they should be handled as such.
The heavy handedness and hypocracy are unfortunately turning even the moderates against the US. All because the US, and many here, can't deferentiate between the many moderates and the few fanatics.
'AlQueda is a much bigger threat to moderate Islam than it is to the West. We are fighting their war for thembecause they lack the courage and the will.' But we're not, all of Iraq is not Al Qaeda, but the more we treat them like they are, the more we push them over to that side.
You've a good arguement for going after AlQauda but a lousy one for invading Iraq.
