Cynthia Tucker, of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, writes that the US should have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq:
The simple truth is that the United States should be engaged in a grueling, long-term campaign against Islamist fanatics. But that sort of war would likely have entailed an invasion of Pakistan instead of the distraction of Iraq. Pakistan has done everything that Bush falsely claimed Iraq had done: it sheltered al-Qaida, and its scientists sold secrets and parts for making the mother of all WMD -- the nuclear bomb -- to North Korea, Libya and Iran.
She then goes on to say that such a invasion would cost thousands of American lives:
But a war against a nuclear power like Pakistan may have involved thousands of U.S. casualties. It would have been a real war.
Then she states that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea because it continues to "fertilize the soil with American blood."
Instead, Bush told us we'd stroll into Iraq, overthrow Saddam, implant democracy and watch it bloom throughout the region -- ultimately bringing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In fact, the president still says that. (Yet, he continues to fertilize the soil with American blood.)
I'm amazed that someone could be for an invasion of Pakistan, which would cost thousands of US lives in initial combat, thousands of additional US lives during the following occupation, and run the risk that Pakistan would lash out with its nuclear weapons (toward India, no doubt) but be against the war in Iraq, which freed millions from a brutal, murderous dictator at a cost of only 374 combat deaths.