I get the sense that the Iraq thing is going poorly.

I know lots of people thought that from the outset. I was not one of those.

I didn't disagree with W's assessment of Saddam Hussein.

I would have liked to see a larger coalition. And I would have liked to see the U.N.'s blessing, but I always thought that the world would be a better place without Saddam running a Middle Eastern country.

As for WMDs (big bombs), it's hard for me to blame W for believing Saddam had them.

After all, everyone in the world believed the same thing. I mean everybody. All the other countries, the United Nations, all the prominent Democrats in this country - everybody.

They all said the same thing. It was unanimous. Not one person was saying, "Hey, you know, maybe Saddam really doesn't have any big bombs."

So it's difficult for me to blame W for believing that Saddam had big bombs.

And I don't think it was a stretch for W or anyone else to surmise that Saddam would dearly love to put a big bomb in the hands of somebody who would plop it down in the middle of a U.S. population center.

Was that just out of the realm of probability? I don't think so.

And the whole "pre-emptive" argument really annoys me, too.

It says basically that we can't defend ourselves unless we are attacked. That we can't be proactive when it comes to defending our country.

That just seems like nonsense.

And think about it. Were we attacked by Korea or Grenada or Panama or Somalia or Bosnia or Libya or any other place we lobbed bombs or sent troops or replaced regimes lately?

I know I've probably forgotten a few.

And consider this. What if in 2000, we would have sent the Army to Afghanistan?

Could we have toppled the Taliban and rooted out Osama bin Laden and derailed the whole 9/11 plot?

We'll never know, will we? But you can bet that if it had happened that way, there would have been plenty of people complaining about the "unjust, pre-emptive war against the hapless Taliban."

Having said all that, however, I am concerned about the wayÊthings are going.

It seems as if the likelihood of success is fading.

I define success with regard to Iraq as achieving our government's stated goals.

Here are some of those goals and expectations, as stated by government officials during the summer of 2003.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "the battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle in the global war on terror, and those sacrifices are going to make not just the Middle East more stable, but our country safer."

Vice President Dick Cheney said Iraq "will stand as an example to the entire Middle East" and thus "contribute directly to the security of America and our friends."

A W aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, outlined a long-term strategy where the U.S. would spread its values through Iraq and the Middle East.

"The great goal for the United States after 9/11 is worthy of a country of the importance and the power of the United States," the adviser said. "That goal is to see the spread of our values and to understand that our values and our security are inextricably linked, much as they were in Europe (after World War II), but they are also linked in the Middle East."

Other goals and expectations included Iraq becoming a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and a resultant easing of tensions between Israel and the Arab world.

Of course, normalized oil production in Iraq also was expected to help stabilize the world oil market.

But you know, I don't really see this happening anytime soon, if ever.

If anything, I think we've probably made things worse between us and the Arab world.

Perhaps we were a little naive to think the Iraqi people would simply embrace the idea of democracy. After all, lots of Arabs perceive the U.S. as the Great Satan.

A couple recent developments in Iraq are quite unsettling - aside from the continual suicide bombings and roadside attacks.

I was truly puzzled by the W administration and the Pentagon's decision to pull back troops from Fallujah after a month-long standoff with armed fighters.

There were press reports from Fallujah stating that residents were dancing in the streets with guerrilla fighters. They were declaring victory as the Marines pulled out.

The Washington Post reported: "As the militiamen drove through Fallujah in trucks and congregated on deserted street corners, residents flashed V-for-victory signs and mosques broadcast celebratory messages proclaiming triumph over the Americans. 'We won,' said one of the militiamen. 'We didn't want the Americans to enter the city and we succeeded.'"

Seems to me that can be nothing but a significant setback for the U.S.

And then we handed the responsibility of patrolling Fallujah over to a group of former Iraqi generals who previously held high commands under Saddam. Those generals are creating the Pentagon-equipped Fallujah Protection Army. More than likely, the fighters in Fallujah will join the new FPA. So if things go wrong with the new FPA - that's not wholly unlikely - and we have to intervene, they'd be shooting at us with weapons we supplied them.

What's up with that?

And if things weren't tough enough in Iraq, now we have the photo of the hapless Iraqi prisoner, draped in black hood and cloth, forced to stand on a pedestal with electric wires attached to his fingers.

There were other photos, too, some much more humiliating and inhumane.

But the photo of the hooded prisoner stands out. That single photo will endure, providing the Arab world with an incentive to hate us even more.

It is a catalyst for anti-American sentiment worldwide. And frankly, it makes America seem not much better than the Baath Party. Just another vile regime.

Of course, Americans know how far from the truth that is. But the Arab world? It's all the proof they need.

I would like nothing more than for the U.S. to achieve its stated goals in Iraq. I would be thrilled if Iraq would become a beacon of democracy, a stabilizing influence in the Middle East.

I am just not very optimistic about that happening. [[In-content Ad]]