I afford the Economist quite a bit of credibility on most matters of economics and world affairs. If its analysis endorsed the Bush war, I would certainly take that as encoraging news for those of use who believe that democracy in Arabia will lead to prosperity and peace there, and that a US invasion of Iraq could facilitate just that. However, this analysis reaches the opposite conclusion.
My buddy in Iraq visits me this weekend in Detroit, a stop over on his way back to our hometown of Austin, Tx (specifically, the negro badlands known there as "the Eastside"). He supports Bush's goals, but concludes that too many people in Iraq are violently retarded, and that the downfall of Hussein merely opened the door for various other brutal, mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers. He sees only one possible mechanism of victory there: total war, which Nadir and the lefties claim Bush is already waging. In my friend's analysis, US troops are causing enough destruction to upset people and disturb various tyranical beehives, but not enough to wear-down the tyrants. He suggests that the US leave and let these people kill each other until they get tired of it.
He says the US made two enormous blunders: (1) Abu Graib. (2) A time or two they had neighborhoods full of tyrant madmen surrounded by war-lusting marines. In each case the marines could have eliminated those KKK-like bastards, and each time political considerations saved the bastards.
I supported Bush's war, though never 100%. My support is at pretty low point now...