Despite having got almost everything wrong (google "another Vietnam" or "another Stalingrad"), Stoppers like to claim events in Iraq have proved them right.
By way of contrast, it's interesting to read a Libertarian who did actually get a hell of a lot right when he wrote in opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. It's a longish piece (Gene Healy, Cato Institute) but worth spending time over.
The administration has framed its case for war in terms of American national security. That's the case I'll address. I won't argue with their assessment that Hussein is an evil and murderous tyrant; clearly he is. I won't argue that venal or frivolous motives lie behind the administration's push for war—such as a desire to control Iraqi oil fields or a personal vendetta on the part of President Bush. I don't think such motivations are what drive the administration. Finally, I won't even spill much ink on the moral case against war in Iraq, even though I think that case is quite strong. Simply put, it's wrong for us to kill (at a minimum) hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians based on an entirely speculative possibility of future harm. But as it happens, the pragmatic case against invasion is strong enough to suffice by itself. Iraq does not represent a threat to American national security. In fact, invading and occupying Iraq will likely undermine American national security, perhaps catastrophically so.