Ouch

A British journalist basically hits the issue on the head.

I believe, fundamentally, that the United States should make it very costly to passively or actively oppose us. That is, having plans to wipe out the entire Al Queda organization should they be successful in attacking us, prior to 9/11. But it also means treating general belligerance, like that of Saddam, with an ass kicking as opposed to a mere slap on the wrist.

It also means not trying to get thug or racist regimes like the PA or Egypt or North Korea to like us. It doesn't necessarily mean fighting everyone all the time, but being clear that we don't like you and would prefer if you were not the ruling power of your country.

But, this journalist makes a good point - are we making behavior we don't like costly enough? Are we making it costly at all?

The problem prior to 9/11 was that in the Arab world, hating the US had a number of upsides and almost no downsides. Iraq tried to flip that around. But it's become a lot more complex and weird than anyone anticipated. I don't recall anyone talking about a sectarian civil war as a reason not to invade. I could be wrong. Most rational people opposed to the intervention talked about a national insurgency or guerrilla movement or said that it would be a distraction from the focused war on Islamic Fascists in Afghanistan, etc.

The sectarian issue has come up in the past year or so, with a few initial warnings gone unheeded, but it is clear now that is the big issue. In fact, here is an Israeli professor's podcast talking about how those interested in sectarian strife are using Israel and Iraq as an excuse to fan the flames.