The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T) today joined other liberal media in criticizing the 5-year Iraq war and the Bush administration. As was entirely predictable, the SH-T is relentlessly negative in its editorial, ignoring all accomplishments and signs of real progress. They must be relying on their own paper for their Iraq news.

Let me provide an overview of Iraq and a different perspective.

First, I believe it is more accurate to describe the affair as the Iraq liberation, rather than the Iraq war. After all, liberation of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy were two of the main goals of the conflict. Here's a status check on all the goals:

1. Overthrow the brutal, murderous, tyrant Saddam Hussein, a man that had supported terrorism, developed and used weapons of mass destruction (against his own people!), and ran torture chambers and rape rooms. Saddam and his two monstrous sons were overthrown and no longer soil the planet. Mission Accomplished.

2. Stop the Saddam's development of WMDs. Imagine if the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 had access to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons instead of airplanes. Imagine the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people they could have killed. Imagine the complete chaos it would cause to our economy. After 9/11, we could no longer sit back and hope that Saddam wouldn't give his WMDs to terrorists bent on murdering us.

And everybody thought he had stockpiles of WMDs. The CIA did. The Clinton Administation did. Our allies did. And most importantly to Saddam, Iran did. In fact, although it makes liberals gnash their teeth, we did find WMDs in Iraq. Yes, they were part of an older batch than the one we were looking for (I'm still not sure why that matters), but WMDs were found. Regardless of the quantity or quality of those WMDs, or whether stockpiles were moved to Syria (as the number two man in Saddam's Air Force claims), one thing is certain: WMDs are no longer being developed in Iraq and will not end up in the hands of terrorists. Mission Accomplished.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)Addressing the US SenateOctober 10, 2002

3. Provide a level of security to Iraq while a democratic government is formed. The period of time after the overthrow of Saddam through 2005 was marked by increasing peace and security. Then al Qaeda came up with what was really a smart strategy: spark a civil war, setting Shia against Sunni. With thousand-year-old animosities and rivalries already in place, it was relatively easy to set the factions against each other, but the key moment seemed to be the bombing of the Golden Temple in Sammara. Military and civilian deaths soared as violence became the norm.

It is undeniable that the Bush administration did not foresee the level of terrorism and violence that al Qaeda could generate, but neither did anybody else. In fact, al Qaeda decided to make Iraq its central front in its war against the West. It took way too long for the Bush administration to develop a new strategy to deal with al Qaeda, but it finally did with the Surge, and with changing the way the military interacts with Iraqi citizens and neighborhood.

Thanks to the new strategy, backed by John McCain but decried by liberals, Iraq has since grown more peaceful each month. Terrorism is way down. Civilian deaths are way down, military deaths are way down, and the bond between the Iraqi people and our military has never been stronger. Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda, and we have virtually eliminated them from Iraq. Sure, there are still stragglers and small pockets of trouble, but the bottom line is this: we have defeated al Qaeda in Iraq and have established a level of peace necessary for a democratic Iraqi government to continue to form. Mission Accomplished.

4. Hand over governmental responsibilities to the Iraqi government. This is still a work in progress. The pace has been excruciatingly slow, thanks to old animosities, complex demographic considerations, and the shear scale of the undertaking. This is, I believe, the toughest challenge of the Iraq liberation. While the Iraqi government is functioning (and the Iraqi people give it high marks in polls), it is not yet at a level where we can walk away. The Iraqi people do not want us to leave. How do we speed up the process? I don't know that we can. It will take time. Mission Partially Accomplished.

5. Establish a beachhead of democracy in a region of the world that desperately needs it. Imagine how the liberation of Iraq, the defeat of al Qaeda, and the birth of democracy must be affecting the citizens of, say, Iran or Syria. The example Iraq sets will be the greatest enduring benefit of the Iraq war, but the benefits will likely be realized over the course of years and decades. History, I believe, will be very, very kind to President Bush. Fair-minded historians will see Iraq as turning point in the Middle East and the war on terrorism.

There are signs already that Iraq has turned the tide against terrorism. We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11/01, an astounding 2,381 days and counting. The London bombings on 7/7/05 were almost three years ago. Al Qaeda has been chased and hounded by the Bush Administration and our numerous allies all over the world, and al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq is a major part of that story. Yes, al Qaeda, WMDs, and terrorist-supporting regimes still exist, and we could suffer an attack tomorrow. But the track record so far is undeniable strong. Mission Partially Accomplished.

Now, consider the cost of the Iraq liberation. As of today, 3,251 members of our military have been killed in action in Iraq. (The media love to quote the higher figure of deaths in Iraq (3,988), but of course, there are accidental deaths all the time in the military, even among those stationed in the U.S. in a time of peace.) While 3,251 deaths is certainly devastating for the friends and family members of those who gave their lives, any clear-eyed assessment must conclude that it is a tiny fraction of both the pre-war estimates of hundreds of thousands of deaths and the number of deaths in previous wars. Compare 3,251 to the 100,000+ dead in WWI. Compare it to the 400,000+ dead in WWII (the Marines lost more than double the number lost in Iraq in just one battle: Iwo Jima). Compare it to the 54,000 dead in Korea or the 58,000 dead in Vietnam. Yes, losing 3,251 of our finest men and women is a heavy cost. But human cost of other wars has been much, much higher.

Financially, Operation Iraqi Freedom has cost a fortune, and continues to do so. Not only does supporting the troops cost billions, but so does all the reconstruction we are doing to stabilize and improve the lives of the Iraqi people. We are up to $500+ billion with a long way to go. Without question, Iraq has been a substantial drain on our national treasury. That's why it is so important to take the long view of Iraq, the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. If we and the Iraqi people are successful, the cost in both lives and money will have been well-spent. If we aren't successful (and the only way it appears we won't be is if we abandon the Iraqi people too soon), the lives lost and billions spent will have been in vain.

Liberals are fully invested in the idea of defeat in Iraq. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (although it initially supported the war, if I recall correctly), like so many liberal organizations, refuses to acknowledge the truth that much good is happening in Iraq and the war against al Qaeda and terrorism. They can't. Any such acknowledgement of progress and positive developments would upset their world-view that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a disaster and the Bush Administration is incompetent, so it must be ignored. To show you the depth of the SH-T's state of denial, they fret in their editorial that the "depth of the American news coverage of the war" has waned. Could it be that the coverage has waned because the news has been good? Not only does good news not sell newspapers, it also destroys firmly held beliefs. Better to ignore it.