Jon Stewart did a brilliant job yesterday, on the Daily Show, critiquing a statement by George W. Bush in which the President indicated that Iraq was the logical next choice in the war on terrorism. Stewart noted that actually, there is more evidence for terrorist backing from Saudi Arabia (most of the 9-11 hijackers were carrying Saudi passports) and Iran. There is, actually, very little linkage between Iraq and terror.

"Experience suggests that the prevention of state failure depends almost entirely on a scare commodity: international political will." [emphasis added]

Robert I. Rothberg, Failed States in a World of Terror.

This, of course, applies to most instances of international intervention. In the American discourse, Iraq is an enemy, Saudi Arabia is a friend, and Iran is not a threat. In the American discourse, Iraq is feared and Israel is not; one is allowed to posess weapons of mass destruction stolen from America, and the other is sacked at the mere speculation of seeking the ability to build such weapons. The fact of the matter is, even the war on terror is subject to and directed by questions of political feasibility.

Iraq found itself at a critical juncture in world history: the American public was spoiling for a fight, Iraq was already percieved as an enemy, America had economic interests in the area, intervention was justifiable for humanitarian reasons, and the legitimacy of her government was publicly questioned. Iraq's main mistake was not belonging, like Saudi Arabia, North Korea and China, to gentleman's club of world politics.