I protest.

An unpopular viewpoint.

At least here in the US:

ArabNews: Editorial: Elusive WMDs

The short version: No evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" has so far been found. If none are found, so much for the US rationale for invading. According to Bush, et al, we invaded because Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction" and will use them. The "liberating the Iraqi people" excuse only came later, after the invasion was already in place.

Of course, in the US, this is a damned unpopular viewpoint. People seem to be convinced that we had to invade, that we had some kind of moral obligation to invade, or if we hadn't invaded then the world would have been worse off. I believe neither. Even given a "moral obligation," we have a much greater moral obligation to be part of a true coalition of countries. If we can sell the "moral obligation to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Hussein" to that coalition, then there's both a reason and a method to move against him. True overwhelming force, instead of Rumsfeld's stupid "high-tech warfare" against the advice of the Pentagon.

If we weren't able to sell that "moral obligation" to the coalition, then we should have stayed the hell out. We do not have the right to be the moral authority for the world. When we try to assume that authority, we instantly lose it as well as any credibility we might have had.

As is the case now.