1.  Absolute honesty and transparency.  The American people - and, for that matter, the citizens of other counties that are participating, need to be convinced of the need for the operation on its legitimate merits.  (Not told that there's going to be a mushroom cloud in NYC, with a post hoc justification about human rights when the WMDs don't appear.)  If, hearing these legitimate merits, the public doesn't think it's worth the sacrifice - then, even if I would have supported an operation, it shouldn't happen.  It's the role of a leader to convince, not deceive.

2.  Genuine international consensus.  There are various legitimate ways to establish this.  Ad hoc coalitions (especially fig leaf coaltions) aren't adequate.  Regional cooperation is critical.

3.  Non-conflation.  The goal should be strictly and clealy humanitarian, and not involve grand plans to reshape the geopolitical configuration of a region (even though an aim like "spreading democracy" which is admirable on the surface).

4.  Imminent threat of, or ongoing, genocide.  Saddam and his cadre were monsters, and had a history of genocidal behavior.  However, the no-fly zone policy had been curbing the worst of his offenses.  The gassing of the Kurds had stopped.  This ties to the next point...

5.  Minimum possible means.  If another less interventionist option is available, it should be tried.  Again, contrast a full invasion with the fairly successful no-fly zone policy in Iraq.

5.  Careful planning, including a post-invasion strategy and an exit strategy.  This one, I think, speaks for itself.

My personal opposition to the war has less to do with the reasons they gave and more to do with the actual reasons. You know: China, Europe, and peak oil.

Because that was the presented rationale for the war, I opposed it.  Had the rationale been humanitarian, I might have favored it.  What really creases me is that as it became increasingly clear the WMDs were not to be found, the Bush administration started talking about Hussein as a brutal dictator who slaughtered his people.  Of course, they could never have used that rationale two years earlier because conservatives would have laughed them out of the room.

I was less angry about going to war over mistaken intelligence than I was about shifting the rationale.  It's a statistical guarantee that intelligence is going to be wrong every once in a while, but we have to trust it or we will meet a bad end.  However, painting it in terms of human suffering when that had little to do with the originally stated motive offended the hell out of me.

Given a legitimate original motive, then, I might have been okay with this war.  Having said that, there are two humongous caveats I want to give.

First, let's be clear: the "diplomacy, "strategy," and "post-war plan" were all horrendously mangled or flat-out non-existent, so in that sense, I had a problem with the war itself.  Regardless of the motive, the execution has been criminally mismanaged.

Second, when we talk about human rights abuses, we need to recognize that there were / are many nations with more serious issues than Iraq.  If we are serious about it, we should have STARTED in the Sudan or in North Korea.  Proof positive to me that this was political: we will not invade North Korea because Kim Jong-Il is a) crazy enough to respond with WMDs and b) likely to counterattack into South Korea.  So what do we do?  Ignore the bigger injustice and stop the easy one.  So even given a humanitarian motive, I would have been suspicious; why start with Iraq when the Sudanese and North Koreans are flat-out begging for help?

In the end, the Neo-Con objective of spreading democracy is an admirable one; hell, Democrats have been pushing for it for years.  But if there is one thing history should teach us, it is this: democracy is not born at gun point.  It is born from within the nation.  Encouraging democracy through trade, aide, and political interaction works; strong-arming democracy by deposing other leaders does not.  We can create stability by installing an autocrat, as we have for years; we cannot create stability by installing a democracy.  Nascent democracies are inherently unstable and, consequently, can only survive with domestic popular support.

Or how about "Clinton Flew Cocaine Into Arkansas Airport While Governor" stories.

Next to the ones you list these are some of my favorites.

Consistent? Would that be like supporting the Iraq war in several columns and speeches, then opposing it, then announcing that he would have voted for the war resolution, then reversing and saying he would have voted against it?

"The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces."

I don't think one person could tabulate the numerous failed U.N. resolutions for intervention to prevent/aid humanitarian crises, and successful resolutions to thwart intervention.  We acted to prevent further genocide that surely would have resulted in the extermination of hundreds of thousands of more Albanians.  Comparing Kosovo to Iraq, is like comparing Rwanda to Cambodia.

And suggesting that there be no intervention in this genocide because it involves troops on the ground is exactly what compromises pacifists credibility.  Hell, even the 101st Airborne had to help integrate Central High for goodness-sake!

The theocons are ruining the idea of humanitarian OOTW. I think that may have been part of their strategy.

Why should we tie our national interests and prestige to some bloodbath in the askcrack of nowhere?

People have been butchering people left and right in Darfur since the beginning of time.  Given the history of Darfur, particularly its ties to the Mahdist movement, it might not be the best bees nest in the world to be stirring up during the War on Terror.

If there's proof positive that al-Qaeda is there, I'm all for small operations to fix that.  But a full-scale intervention is the African Union's problem, not ours.

Kosovo: same deal.  If the fucking EU has so little pride that they won't stand up for what is right in their own bakyard, why is it America's problem?

Iraq is so far beyond the pale it's not even funny.  

Rwanada is even worse.  At least Iraq has oil!

Not a single one of those countries is worth the life of so much as one Paris Island grunt.

This makes me lose some of my confidence.  

Yes, Darfur is a humanitarian mess.  No, it is not feasible to ask the American people to get involved in anymore "voluntary" wars.  Not at this point in history.  We need to repair the damage to our country, to our military, and our foreign policy, before getting involved in something that has to seem, at this time, an adventure.

We're all adventured out.  Humanitarian reasons aren't good enough for me to support another military action.  If he wants to fix Darfur, he should keep that plan to himself and first run for President on the basis of cleaning up the mess that Bush got us into in the Middle East.  That is  PRIORITY ONE.