King, I think we disagree on history. Of course we occupied Japan as a result of WWII, and that's worked out pretty well. Maybe you could throw South Korea in there too, post-WWII, and that also worked well. We occupied the Philippines for 40-odd years, ending just after WWII, then helped them fight a Communist insurgency in the 50's. Turned out OK. And for those that say you can't impose democracy through force . . . was either Germany or Japan democratic before we occupied them?

Mark, there are even some pretty smart Democrats--former senator Bob Kerrey among them, and there's a guy with good credentials on terrorism as a member of the 9/11 Commission--who believe that an overly precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would have very negative consequences. It's not quite like leaving Vietnam, because there was not much danger that the NVA was going to attack us at home. The terrorists already have, and regardless of the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, we're dealing with the same kind of Islamist radicals in Iraq--including Al Qaeda--as attacked us on 9/11. We turned tail in Somalia, did virtually nothing following the attacks on our embassies in Africa. That emboldened the terrorists. Abandoning Iraq too soon would be even worse. As for bombing Iran, you skipped right over the details: only if we know for certain they're actively working on nukes. This is a country that, without question, sponsors terrorism (as in Hezbollah). This is a country that has promised to destroy Israel. Unlike the case of North Korea, with whom we can bargain to get them to shut down their nuke factory, we don't have anything Iran wants or needs. Although it's something I'd rather see us avoid, force may be the only option if they start making nukes.