What If We Had Not Gone into Iraq?

I just read a pretty good op/ed from Richard Reeves. I especially liked the quote he has from an Atlantic Monthly article:

I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history -- or only the worst since Vietnam. Many say things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: It has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.

There can be little question that, contrary to the president's assertions, the war in Iraq has put this country at risk. Another great quote from the Atlantic Monthly article:

Are we better off in basic security than before we invaded Iraq? The answer is no. An unnecessary war has consumed American Army and other ground resources, to the point where we have nothing left in the cupboard for another contingency -- for instance, should the North Koreans decide that with the Americans completely absorbed in Iraq, now is the time to do something.

One last quote, reflecting how consumed the military has become with Iraq and the consequent loss of security, this from Reeves:

Those surveillance satellites that once were pointed at the Soviet Union and then at Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida have been pointed at Iraq for almost three years.

So rather than spy on an enemy who has attacked our country and killed nearly 3000, we're caught up spying on a country that posed little threat to our security.

So many people want to say that we are safer under Bush. I think of a statement from Star Wars: who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?