BETTER THAN SADDAM?
I understand the logic of Jonah Goldberg's latest column -- if Iraqis vote to keep Americans in place, then it cannot be spinned as an "occupation," and they would likely vote to keep them because they know that without the Americans there, it would descend into civil war.
This does well for the current operation, but undercuts the initial invasion, because couldn't most of the above paragraph have been said about Saddam? Wasn't his iron-fisted rule keeping Iraq from descending into civil war? Didn't he win "elections?" And even if those elections weren't free, might he have still won elections for the same reasons Americans would win this election?
I guess I think we ought to aim for better than to have our presence in Iraq justified by the same logic that Saddam could have used.