The commonly held belief that the war in Iraq has served as a massive recruitment poster for the terrorists not stick with you? You don't realize that Saddam was pretty anti-terrorist? Afghanistan, I can understand, but not Iraq. It's killing our country. But these "aggressive actions towards the enemy" are completely misdirected. In the war on terror, Iraq was not our enemy. We've found proof that Saddam refused to help various terrorist groups. Dragging us into a costly war in human life, stability, power, and money, is good?
What future events would those be?
Sorry for the thread-hijack.
Iraq is to be a democratic foothold for the inevitable and much harder campaigns against Iran, Syria and others. It's easier to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy then Afganistan because of it's oil wealth (it's military was also weakened from the last war and a case for war against Iran or Syria would have been harder at the time not to mention the war itself) and another democractic ally besides Israel will be needed if the larger war is to be won. At least this would be my plan because I don't see how you can fight Islamic extremism without turning the middle east into democractic nations. I would agree Saddam had no links to Al-qaeda but he did openly support terrorist actions against Israel and in recent years was hostile towards the west.
Anyway as I was saying Iraq is simply the first step in a long and tough campaign that can be won if the nations involved keep their resolve. In what I consider the greatest betrayal in our history my country has recently pulled troops out of Iraq and I feel dirty even thinking about the cowardice our newly elected left wing government has shown. America can't be expected to carry the burden alone and the lack of resolve from day one from western countries will be the reason for failure... at least in the short term. It wouldn't surprise me if future events increase the resolve of the west once people realise just how serious the threat is.