Stupidest rationale for a pro-war position

People in favor of the Iraq war/occupation have advanced a lot of reasons for why (a) we invaded, and (b) we need to stay. You know, WMD, democracy, terrorism, human rights, etc. etc. etc. But just when you think you've heard them all, along comes David Ignatius of the Washington Post to drop an absolute turkey of a statement in our collective lap:

This U.S. training mission in Iraq was the heart of the Baker-Hamilton report's recommendation last December. And it still seems to me the right way forward. American troops cannot stop a civil war in Iraq, but they can teach soldiers how to fix drive shafts, maintain engines and order spare parts. That's a basic mission that Congress should reaffirm, even as it questions the surge of more U.S. troops into Baghdad.

Okaaaaaay. Got that? Congress should question the surge of troops into Baghdad (and with it the entire basis for the war), but we need to keep the troops there so that we can serve as the Iraqi equivalent of Mr. Goodwrench, helping those loveable Iraqi soldiers how to....drum roll....battle terror? No. Um, find WMD? Naw. What, then? Yeah, "fix driveshafts." That's got to be an incredible consolation to some family from Iowa whose first-born son was killed on the streets of Baghdad. "Take comfort, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, that your son Todd died doing what he loved doing--providing auto repair lessons to a company of Iraqi army recruits." Unreal.