> 1) The war is a strategic blunder.

Stripping Saddam Hussein of power is a strategic success.

> 2) The war is a tactical clusterfuck.

Given that no battles have been won by the enemy, and that casualties are so light that it barely qualifies as "war" in the first place, it's hard to imagine how you're defining "clusterfuck" comparative to, say, the sense in which it was employed to describe Vietnam.

> 3) The war is contrary to the national security interests of the United States insofar as it has directly harmed the US and directly benefited al Qaeda, Iran and other enemy states and groups.

In what way have the interests of the US been harmed, and those of the Shari'a Caliphate been enhanced, over that of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power?

> To the extent that I'm "anti-war" in general, I offer the following reasons (also in no particular order and also with no claim to exhaustiveness):
>
> 1) War as historically conducted is generally (and in the specific case of the Iraq war) financed through theft.

So is *municipal trash-removal* -- You're essentially arguing that you're anti-municipal-trash-removal, as if trash-removal is a value which ceases to be a value if a state comes along to declare a monopoly on it.