disclaimer: as I said to start, I feel it's a stupid strategy in that it wouldn't work... going into Iraq is exactly the wrong way to go, it's a waste of resource in terms of reducing terrorism.

So it's sort of a word game or intellectual game I'm playing, I took that as a challenge.  

A coherent argument is one that is not self-contradictory, to put it as simple as possible.

That is, an argument which is not wrong because of evidence or miscalculation.  For example, the idea that supporting the troops means supporting the war... that's incoherent... you can't support troops by sending them to a war that is a bad idea.  To support the troops you have to judge the value of the war.  The geographic argument is antiquated... you make a good point against it but to my way of seeing it you didn't not show it was incoherent, just ill advised, because you have pointed to other geographic hot spots in addition to this one.

Just to be clear, I still stand by my idea of what coherence means... but I also think that invading Iraq is the worst thing we could have done in the "war on terror" for several reasons.