Sorry, you've lost me. Who uses this criteria to assess whether to take an action against an adversary? The only person I can think of is Chomsky.
> It also helps debunk the rabid individualism/reification of Saddam as
> omnipotent.
Who seriously believes Saddam is omnipotent? I've come across people who think he's the head of some world wide network of terror, but that's a little different (and not nullified by pointing out the US connection).
> That way the argument can be shifted over to the negative
> contagion/spillover/destabilization effects that may ensue from a
prolonged
> and it would be *long* time before the US could exit- presence in the
region.
I doubt it. Insurrection has been put down easily enough in the past - just look at Syria. Saudi Arabia might be a problem, but then the oil's easily defensible. Mecca might fall, but so what? It might even be a good thing for the US - it would separate the religion from the oil.
Al-Quaida probably wouldn't have any problems recruiting though. Still, everyone important can afford private jets, right?
Pointing out that this war is the perfect way to lose the "war against terror", is probably the best way to proceed. Especially as most people seem to half suspect this anyway.