The main thing I take away from things like this is that no matter what course of action was chosen, there would have been bright, well-informed, in-the-loop, and thoughtful people who thought it was a terrible idea.

While I was very skeptical of the U.N. route at first, I think that people who said it was the right way to go. It gave us time to build up our forces, and it also gave us increased credibility in many people's eyes.

Yes, there are those who say it's reduced our credibility. They are wrong. There were a number of nations that were straddling the fence before we went to the U.N. who are now on board with us, precisely because they saw that we were willing to compromise and try to reach a consensus before acting.

Even if we don't get another resolution, the choice we made seems to have garnered us more allies than going it alone would have--and given us all kinds of time to get our ducks in a row in the process.

Yes, a must-read.

I don't find Pollack's negatives very persuasive. The endless 'peace-process' negotiations have never done any good, and stopping them gives us a chance for a realistic new start. And once Iraq falls everyone will be in a much more realistic frame of mind.

And Iraq is not a distraction from Al Queda, it's a blow at their weakest point, which is that all the terrorist groups need terror-supporting nations to be effective. Once we take out the ugliest one, the others will be much less enthusiastic.

As for JMM's ambivalence, I very much suspect it is partisan, and if Clinton were President he would feel none. But it's a very good interview.

The following interview on National Public Radio with Wolfie was pretty good, too (note-it's been edited for space):

Q: Would lack of Turkish cooperation weaken any attempt of the northern front going into Iraq? Would it jeopardize oilfields in the north of the country?

Wolfowitz: Turkey is critical to having an effective northern option, and that northern option would speed the outcome but the outcome is going to be the same one way or the other. And if we have to use force, Saddam Hussein will be gone and he needs to know that. I think the Iraqi armed forces know that. So the outcome is certain either way.

Q: Turning to the United Nations and efforts of a second UN resolution on Iraq. Do you see a risk in prolonged consultation at the UN level? Or is there a greater risk in beginning a military campaign without the backing of the United Nations?

Wolfowitz: There are a variety of risks that the President has to balance here and there's no question that the longer we wait the more time Saddam has to prepare weapons of mass destruction, to prepare diabolical plans to gas his own people. We get reports about that kind of thing. The more time he has to expand the terrorist networks that already operate out of northeastern Iraq and have sanctuary in Baghdad. So those risks grow.

I think the strain on many of the countries that are literally in the front lines grows with time. It doesn't get easier on many of the countries that are really critical to us to delay and delay. And when you say acting without the United Nations you're really saying acting in spite of a French veto. And one has to say how important is France versus how important are all the other people who are there and ready to support us? And how long do you say wait and wait and wait in the face of what is clearly open defiance by Saddam and the Iraqi regime, total absence of any serious willingness to disarm?

Q: We've been hearing concerns voiced by Arab countries about the risks of war with Iraq and an eventual U.S. occupation of that country. At the United Nations yesterday there were envoys from Muslim countries warning of massive political instability in the region, of huge numbers of deaths and injuries as well as refugees.

How do you respond to those concerns?

Wolfowitz: First of all to say that we will do everything humanly possible to achieve the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime with minimum casualties to the Iraqi population and to try to -- There's no such thing as a humane war, but to try to minimize the inhumanity that will result. I think clearly some of the fears come from exaggerated notions of what may happen.

Those fears are real, though, they are concerned about how their own populations will react to what will unquestionably be a disturbing and unsettling thing. It's one of the reasons why the President has tried so hard to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. But at the end of the day I think many of these governments understand that if the United States is really prepared to act, that it will be an act of humanity of the Iraqi people, that it will be an act that will bring more stability to the region, not less. But don't expect them to stand up before we've made our decision and say please go take care of Saddam Hussein. This is like asking some small shopkeeper to take on the Mafia in their neighborhood. They expect the law enforcement authorities to do the job.

Q: There are concerns, too, though about the rise of Muslim extremism in the region inflamed by the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and in fact we did see that after the first Gulf War, an increase in anti-American activities and Islamic extremism. Isn't that a very real concern?

Wolfowitz: First of all let me correct the history because we didn't see that. After the first Gulf War we saw the Madrid Conference, the first time that most Arab countries sat down and met face to face with Israel, which should hardly be surprising if you remember that to go back another ten years it was Saddam Hussein in Baghdad that organized the so-called confrontation block to oppose Anwar Sadat's efforts to make peace with Israel. When Saddam Hussein was no longer considered dangerous, we were able to get the Madrid Conference together.

That was followed by the Oslo Agreement which has not lived up to its expectations, but it's clearly one of the major breakthroughs.

What I believe has contributed to some Islamic extremism is the fact that we have had to stay for 12 years now, containing Iraq with sanctions on Iraq, with weekly bombing of Iraq because Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations. Another 12 years of doing that is certainly going to feed the Islamic extremism.

But we're not talking about the occupation of Iraq. We're talking about the liberation of Iraq. We're talking about the liberation of one of the most talented populations in the Arab world and perhaps the most long-suffering population in the Arab world.

In the conference room that we're sitting in and talking now, last Friday I met with five Iraqi-Americans from Michigan. Interestingly, three Shia, one Sunni, one Caldian Christian. Very broadly representative of the population back in Iraq. Two things were striking to me.

One was the almost desperate desire that they reflected and clearly that their relatives, some still inside Iraq reflect, to be rid of this tyrant. And every one of them had terrible stories from their own experiences or their families' experiences. Three of them in fact, actually were overcome with emotion in the course of telling their stories and had to stop for a minute or two. It's very moving. It wasn't a surprise to me if you -- I get a little irritated sometimes when people say well we all know how bad Saddam Hussein is. Well, we really don't. I mean I dealt with Ferdinand Marcos. Ferdinand Marcos is a Sunday School teacher compared to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is in almost a unique category.

Therefore, when that regime is removed we will find one of the most talented populations in the Arab world, perhaps complaining that it took us so long to get there. Perhaps a little unfriendly to the French for making it take so long. But basically welcoming us as liberators. Then it's up to us to behave as liberators, and I'm sure we will.

Americans are not conquerors. The Arab world is going to see that and it's going to have a very big impact not just in Iraq but throughout the Arab world.

Q: But the presence of -- I have to take you back one more time after the Gulf War. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia has been one of the most inflammatory things for al Qaeda and groups like that. That they see U.S. occupation or U.S. presence in that country as something that they must fight against. How would it be any different in Iraq?

Wolfowitz: First of all, let's talk about Saudi Arabia. We won't need troops in Saudi Arabia when there's no longer an Iraqi threat. The Saudi problem will be transformed. IN Iraq, first of all the Iraqi population is completely different from the Saudi population. The Iraqis are among the most educated people in the Arab world. They are by and large quite secular. They are overwhelmingly Shia which is different from the Wahabis of the peninsula, and they don't bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory. They are totally different situations. But the most fundamental difference is that, let me put it this way. We're seeing today how much the people of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe appreciate what the United States did to help liberate them from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. I think you're going to see even more of that sentiment in Iraq.

There's not going to be the hostility that you described Saturday. There simply won't be.

Q: I don't mean within Iraq necessarily, but external to Iraq.

Wolfowitz: It's hard to see how people externally can complain if the Iraqi people are saying these people came and liberated us.

Q: This past weekend there were massive protests against a possible war with Iraq around the world, and the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw conceded on Monday that going to war against Iraq in the face of such widespread public opposition would be in his words very difficult indeed. Do you share that concern?

Wolfowitz: First of all, I take his concern very seriously. The British have been perfect allies in this and Prime Minister Blair has been a real profile in courage. I remember more years ago, in 1964, being in front of the Lincoln Memorial and hearing Martin Luther King give that incredible speech, "I have a dream," and there were several hundred thousand of us there demonstrating for civil rights. I understand that very powerful emotions are generated by those large numbers of people.

But I would ask people to stop and think for a minute about the fact that people are not free to demonstrate in Baghdad. People in Baghdad are literally terrorized into silence. The penalty for speaking out, even whispering against the regime there is the most horrible kinds of torture and death, not just for yourself but for your family. It's monstrous.

If the people of Baghdad were free to demonstrate you'd see millions in the street saying "please come, why haven't you come sooner?" And quite honestly, if the demonstrators want to prevent a war the best thing they could have done would have been go and demonstrate in front of the Iraqi embassy and send a message to Saddam saying time is running out for a peaceful solution here.

. . . . . . . it's a war, if it comes to a war, aimed at removing what is a real threat to the United States, to our friends in Europe, and by the way also to the Iraqi people and the people of the Persian Gulf. This group that was arrested in London recently was planning to put ricin into the London subway system. Ricin is one of the most deadly poisons known to man. They are connected to that facility in northeastern Iraq that Secretary Powell spoke about that is connected to Baghdad. Their leaders have found sanctuary and shelter in Baghdad. There is a real threat there . . . . .