Now, see, I always supported the war, but for none of the reasons put forth by the administration. My support was predicated on two points that I never heard brought up publicly:
First, that the 1991 war was still in effect. It was in a state of cease-fire, but no official end to hostilities ever occurred. Therefore, there was not a "new" war, but simply the decision to end, through military means, the first one.
Second, that historical precedent for an extended cease-fire and containment strategy was more expensive and dangerous than simply finishing the 1991 war. I could foresee the year 2040 with 50,000 US troops and 3 million land mines on the border between Iraq and Kuwait/Saudi Arabia; with an ongoing "cease-fire" and containment of Hussein's crazy, unstable son who had succeeded him. The parallel here is, of course, the Korean peninsula.
We complain about the cost of the Iraq war, but that "peaceful" containment there has been just as expensive.