If by false pretext, you mean that we didn't find and WMD's, I will agree with you. However, something you don't hear about to often is the fact that we did find weapons (warheads and delivery missle systems) that violated International AND U.N. law. Second, Iran is probably a large part of why we did invade. You think that this wasn't a good excuse to put troops in a position where they can do good in case Iran decides to start any shit. Third, there may be more civilians dying(although I will not make any calls until I see statistics), but at least they have more freedom, and women can walk down the street without fearing that a high ranking official, or even a member of the ruling party will chose her, rape her in front of cameras, and, if she's lucky, send her home to disowner, or down the river with a slit throat if she's not. Thirdly, no, Saddam wasn't the worst dictator. However, as I've already pointed out, this also gave us a reason to have numbers of troops and equipment in the middle east, near Iran for one. And Finally, who says we were in a quagmire when we started? I'll concede that we are in somewhat of one now, but exactly how many days did it take to take baghdad? How many troops did we lose in open out war with loyalist forces? The current situation merely proves what military historians have been saying for years. There is only one war to fight a war against guerillas(other than becoming guerillas yourselves) and that is through larger numbers of boots on the ground, which, I notice, also has the media complaining.