What we're fighting for in Iraq

Glenn Greenwald tries to say it explain it but has difficulty... because it makes no sense. Can't you just imagine some kid saying: So, tell me Daddy, what were we fighting for in Iraq? Well, it goes something like this: Iran is the number one enemy of America, the U.S. is bogged down in a vital struggle in Iraq as it tries to prop up the government there that has declared itself a strong ally of... Iran. So it would appear that the U.S., at great expense in terms of life, capital and reputation has provided a victory for its worst (current) enemy, Iran, which didn't have to fire a shot but just happened to be there to provide comfort for to its new BFF, Iraq.

During the last two weeks, the President has delivered a series of terrorism-related speeches (which are beyond partisan politics and have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming elections) in which he identifies Iran as the prime enemy of America. And the administration's newly released National Strategy for Combating Terrorism claims that "Iran remains the most active state sponsor of international terrorism."

[...]

It's not just that this war is deceitful or destructive or immoral. The whole thing just makes no sense. The longer we stay, the more lives we lose, the more billions of dollars we squander, the best that we can hope for -- the best -- is to solidify Iran's control over this strategically vital country at exactly the time we have decided to decree Iran to be our worst enemy. Who could possibly defend that?