Iraq and Saddam Hussein - War on Terror

I have been reading many blogs and comments regarding the situation in Iraq. It is my conjecture that there is a confusion in the public mind about what constitutes a just cause with a badly mismanaged strategy.

The belief that America should not have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein is widely held.
The facts:

(1) no weapons of mass destruction were found

(2) The US had no right to act as an international police force

(3) the chaos and failure to establish a democracy in Iraq,
all are justifications for this opinion. I cannot argue with this line of logic. In fact, disregarding all other information, I would have to agree with this assessment.

On the other hand, my opinion is:
America had good reason to attack Iraq because

(1) 9/11 triggered the war on terror, Afghanistan was target No1. The Taliban were sheltering Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as well as being a training ground for terrorism. This war on terrorism doesn't begin and end with Afghanistan.

(2) Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was actively seeking to develop nuclear capabilities. This is a fact. How long should we have waited before taking action?

(3) Saddam Hussein was actively sponsoring terrorism, there is documentary evidence to show how financial rewards were paid to families of suicide bombers.

(4) there is no documentary evidence of collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. True. There is also no documentary evidence of Hitler ordering the extermination of the Jews. Those who want documentary evidence seem to be missing the point, deluding themselves or think the principles of the courtroom apply to foreign policy.

So, as I feel deep regret that the outcome in Iraq has turned into a quagmire, a failure of strategy, a bloodbath for civilians, an abattoir for US troops. It was an exercise started with good intentions. It has been a failure in strategy, a failure because the biggest and most poweful country in the world underestimated the task and the costs involved.
There is a history of American military strategy putting too much emphasis on technology, too much emphasis on doing a job at the minimum expense, using too few troops to carry out a task.
This was the opinion of the generals who were over overruled by Donald Rumsfeld.

If I understand it correctly, his strategy was to use a small force, penetrate Baghdad, remove Saddam Hussein, set up a democratic government and leave. How simple and naive is that?
Using high tech strategy he would ensure minimal casualties, the Iraqi people would welcome US forces with open arms, democracy would flourish. No kidding? Is anyone surprised that Iraq is in chaos?

Strategy failures:

(1) knowing that Iraq is surrounded on all borders by fanatical Muslim nations that hate America, there was no attempt to seal off these borders upon invasion. The effect was an open door policy for Muslim insurgents to flood into Iraq from Iran,Syria,Jordan,Saudi Arabia.

(2) not providing enough troops to secure order in the country

(3) using mercenaries and private guards instead of US troops

(4) expecting democracy to flourish in a country that has never had a democratic government

(5) underestimating the Muslim outrage by the Middle East which is and has been hateful of the US since it was instrumental in the foundation of the State of Israel. This is a sore point with Muslims. The US is extremely naive to this issue. The degree to which Muslims hate the US is beyond most Americans' ability to comprehend.

The next stage of the war on terror will be dealing with it on our home turf.