Memorial Day grew out of remembrances of the Civil War dead. It became a truly national holiday in the wake of the Great War. Today, our nation is immersed in another war. Since last Memorial Day, the number of Americans killed in Iraq has doubled. The number of American military fatalities in this current war stands at 1,657. This is a tiny fraction of the war losses from the Civil War, World War I, or World War II. But there is something dehumanizing in reducing human loss to a mathematical equation.

In 1861, 1918, and 1942, the U.S. government conscripted men to fight. In 2005, thankfully, America has an all-volunteer military. This, more than the lighter body count, stands as the prime reason that American civilians continue with their daily affairs, oblivious to the reality that faces their fellow countrymen a half-world away. Patriotic Americans treat war-dead inscripted monuments with religious veneration. Reminders from Nightline or Doonsebury of the more current war dead are treated as a nuisance.

Less than half of one percent of Americans serve under arms. During the Civil War, the fraction numbered greater than ten percent. During World War II, greater than twelve percent of the population served in some military capacity. It was common for brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands to be at risk. It is uncommon now. Most Americans may know of someone serving in Iraq. Most Americans don't know someone serving in Iraq. This war doesn't hit home because this war doesn't hit home.

This war hits home for me. For eight years, I called the Marine Corps home--at least one weekend a month, and a few weeks a year. A year after my service ended, my unit was called up to fight in Iraq. They all came back save one friend, Gregory MacDonald. I see Greg as a flesh and blood person, and not as a name on a roster of the war dead. When one approaches the names of the 1,657 Americans killed in Iraq from this human standpoint, one's view of this war becomes less narrow. When one approaches the million-plus Americans dead from war from a human rather than a utilitarian standpoint, one's view of war becomes less narrow. It's welcome that war personally impacts fewer and fewer Americans. The downside of this is that people immune from war's costs treat making war in a more flippant manner.

War is serious. War isn't a video game, however much night-vision images on the Fox News Channel make it seem as one. Real people die, even if they're not part of the social circles we travel in. That's worth remembering on Memorial Day, especially if you have no fallen veteran to remember.

Well said Flynn. Let us remember all those brave US soldiers who died in the cause of the preservation and extension of human Liberty, and in the interests of protecting the national security of these United States.

"...the cause of the preservation and extension of human Liberty..."

I think Dan would agree that there's no better day than today to critically evaluate the causes for war, and I think he would also agree that the above isn't one of them.

Rightly or wrongly, we went to war in Iraq "in the interests of protecting the national security of these United States." Unfortunately, it appears that 'wrongly' has carried the day; the rhetoric of 'human liberty' is mere political rhetoric to cover that error (though perhaps a political lie is better than a John Kerry reality).

Knowing what I know now, I would have been against the war. Now that we are there, however, it is difficult to see a way out. I do not think we can simply leave. If Iraq collapses into an extremist regime and we have nothing to show for years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives, it will be a perceived victory for our enemies and embolden them in the future.

False. Making an example out of the government of Saddam Hussein, furthering the Bush Doctrine's plan for Strategic Middle East Democratization, and giving ourselves a strong tactical position in the Middle East are all justifications for the Iraq war that still hold strong today.

Today Iraq looks better than ever. The Iraqi Insurgency has stepped up their attacks to hide the simple fact that they no longer have the capability to attack hard targets, and can now only attack soft ones. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is wounded and believes to be out of the country, while most of the rest of the Insurgent leadership has either been killed or captured. There are now more ISF troops fighting in Iraq than American ones, and we increasingly see the role of the US forces shifting towards providing Armored and Air support for ISF ground forces, which now take on more and more of the on the ground duties every day.

Iraq's democratically elected government has been given control of nation and is currently in the process of drafting an Iraqi Constitution. The Arab League has now officially recognized the New Iraqi Government, and the value of the Iraqi Dinar is shooting up on the world market as Iraq becomes a storm of optimistic investment, promising to have a booming economy in it's bright future.

Those who predict an Iraqi Government that either falls apart when the US leaves or becomes a radical Islamic Theocracy have nothing backing up their statements but unproven rhetoric.

Will the Iraqi Constitution and Government have strong roots in the Islamic faith? Of course. If this is to be a representative government for the Iraqi people than it should REPRESENT them. Does that mean the Iraqi Government cannot respect human rights and democratic traditions? Of course not.

Moving on to hard strategy.

Some would advocate that the US should simply hunt down Osama Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda operatives and bring them to justice. That it should act in the Middle East only when the blatant and clear national interests of the USA are at immediate risk.

This strategy would do one thing: Cause the War on Terror to crash and burn.

What if we kill Osamam Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's top operatives, and then proceed to leave the Middle East as we found it? We will have accomplished next to nothing in preserving the National Security and Foreign Interests of the USA. The current state of the Middle East will still exist as a veritable Jihad factory, nothing will have been done. If we take out Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and then leave, all that it will mean is that the next attack is perpetrated by Al Ansar Al Islam, or Islamic Jihad, instead of the particular group Al Qaeda. The name of the terrorist faction will change, the people who are dead will remain the same: Americans.

If history teaches us any one lesson about the world is that allowing a tyrannical, economically desperate society to foment, to fester like an untreated wound and ignore it will only cause that wound to spread, until eventually we are affected by it and must act.

Europe in the late 1800s, the result was World War I

Europe in the 20s and 30s, the result was World War II

The Growing, largely ignored power of The Soviet Union, the result was The Cold War

The ignoring of The current Middle East situation until eventually the Twin Towers came crumbling down on top of us.

The fact of the matter is that those who identify themselves as foreign policy "non-interventionists" are downright WRONG about how best to protect the American people and the foreign interests of the US. They have been wrong time and time again and they would seek now to return us to a path of "non-interventionism" that will only lead to the necessitation for GREATER interventionism in the future.

They guiding principle of Foreign Policy "Non-Inteverntionism" is to trade small problems in the present for large problems in the future.

Not only is that a wrongheaded view of policy, it in fact is a far MORE interventionist view on policy, bringing about the need for not small scale police actions today, but large scale wars tomorrow.

Actually those who said prior to the war that Iraq had no WMD and was not a threat to the United States were right. Those who argued otherwise were wrong. Since they were wrong they've concoted new rationales to excuse the war. These new rationales will prove to be just as wrong as Bush's mumblings about WMD, unammned aerial drones, and mushroom clouds.

If you are actually claiming that Bush did not preach democracy along with WMDs in the build up to the war than you are a tried and true historical revisionist. This debate has been fought and won at this Blog before, Ben L ended it by posting multiple speeches Bush made about Iraq in the build up to the war that prevalently feature Democracy.

President Bush mentioned "democracy," "human rights," and "Saddam's brutality" but these were never the casus belli for the war. Presient Bush never said that even if Iraq has no WMD we will still invade for the sake of "democracy."

Presient Bush never said that even if Iraq has no WMD we will still invade for the sake of "democracy."

Of course he didn't say that, because he, along with intelligence agencies all over the world, fully believed Iraq had WMD. He was told, twice if I'm not mistaken, that it was a "slam dunk case."

He did say before the war that if he found out no WMDs would there he would still feel that doing it was the right decision.

Then again, the CIA came to the conclusion on 9/30/4 with their Comprehensive Post-War Report that acquiring an arsenal of Nuclear and Chemical weapons was one of the Iraq regimes top priorities:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

But back to topic - God bless all the fallen and their families. We thank them for their service. My two grandparents and my grand-uncle all came back from WW2, and my father was 4-F, so we've been very fortunate. Let's never forget.

"Of course he didn't say that, because he, along with intelligence agencies all over the world, fully believed Iraq had WMD."
This is:
A) False
B) Irrelevant.

The U.N. inspectors noted there no evidence of WMD programs in Iraq and French intelligence also said the same thing, DGSE.

However, President Bush never said that even if Iraq has no WMD we will still invade for the sake of democracy because the casus belli was WMD, not compassion for the Iraqi people or some other post-war spin.

That's interesting Eric.

American French British and Russian Intelligence all believes he was actively pursuing them. So, more or less, did Hans Blix and the United Nations. If they did not, Security Resolution 1441 never would have passed.

Remember, Bush's vote in the security council for UN approval for US actions would have passed if not for the stubborn French Veto that we know now was motivated by corrupt oil dealings/

PS sorry Eric I really did mangle that sentence. What I was meaning to say, and I messed the sentence up royally, was that after the war, but BEFORE WMDs were confirmed to have not been found, Bush said that even if no WMDs were found he felt it would have been the right thing.

However I never did believe WMDs would be found in Iraq and support the war for the three reasons I listed above, all of them having to do solely with the preservation of US interests and security.

We've already had this discussion before so it's tiresome to go over all of this again. French intelligence, DGSE, did not say Iraq had WMD. Canadian journalist Eric Margolis cited this before the war and said that no WMD would be uncovered in Iraq. He was right. Mr Putin also said he'd seen no evidence to indicate Iraq had nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destrution. The U.N. only made the point some weapons were unaccounted for, but did not say that Iraq had weapons. After acting on U.S. intelligence Hans Blix came up empty. Points of a U.N. meeting note that U.N. inspectors found NO EVIDENCE of any WMD programs in Iraq.

Neither Colin Powell's testimony before the United Nations nor President Bush's address to the nation on March 17,2003 made any mention of "brining to democracy to Iraq."

I don't think trying to manage Iraq's internal security and prevent an escalating sectarian conflict is in our interests.

The majority of world intellegence agencies really did believe Saddam had WMD. More on this can be found at:

www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2iss23RivkinCasey.html

www.asininity.com/comments/1926_0_1_0_C/

www.eriksvane.com/lies.htm

www.aijac.org.au/updates/Jun-03/160603.html

They did not entirely agree on what should be done about Saddam's WMD. We now know why France, Russia, and Gernmany were opposed to removing Saddam. Senator John McCain even stated that the the USA built its case, to a large extent, on the intellegence of other nations, especially German intellegence.

The statement that no WMD have been found would not seem to be entirely correct. Road side bombs containing sarin were used against our troops. The military commanders agreed that it was a WMD. This was discussed on Fox News after an attack. The main stream media has largley ignored the WMD finds. More on this can be found at:

http://cshink.com/ignoring_the_wmd_find.htm

While Saddam did possess WMD, it is certainly possible that the stockpiles did not exist. I actually hope they did not, however, I think it may be too early to be optimistic. Neither Charles Duelfer nor David Kay were able to explain what went to Syria. They have said that they think it was unlikely that militarilly significant stocks of WMD went to Syria. In spite of all this, they both still supported the effort to remove Saddam. I have been puzzled as to why they are so optimistic that no militarilly significant stocks of WMD were moved in the run up to the war. More on Syria's posssible role can be found at:

http://cshink.com/syrias_role.htm

Charles Duelfer and David Kay based their conclusions primarily on interviews with former Iraqi regime officials. The word of former regime officials will probably be the least reliable of all sources and will need to be verified by other sources. It seems the interogations of former officials were not handled very well. This is suggested in the following article:

www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Circular%20Reasoning.htm

Also the report discussed in this article appears to be flawed for the following reasons: 1.)It seems to assume Iraq had no WMD. 2.)It assumes the ISG findings cannot be questioned.

Perhaps the WMD stockpiles did not exist, nevertheless, I think it is too early to say for certain.

Thanks B.Poster.

I don't think trying to manage Iraq's internal security and prevent an escalating sectarian conflict is in our interests.
Posted by Eric Wilds at May 31, 2005 10:57 PM

How exactly would you attempt to win the War on Terror without dismantling the Middle East Status Quo? How are we going to defeat Jihadists when that entire region of the world is a veritable Jihad factory? You have never deigned to answer that question for me.

I deeply appreciate the sacrifices of our military. The volunteer force that has been assembled is staffed with typically outstanding recruits who have represented this country extremely well. God bless them all.

The problem I’m having is why they are still fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Saddam is in custody; no WMD’s have been found; Bin Laden network has been crushed. The minute we determined that there was no longer an immediate threat, it was time to bring the troops home.

This happens soon I hope.

If we were to leave Iraq today and the Insurgents to take over, we would have created a threat in Iraq greater than Saddam was ever even thought to have been.

So, what do propose Ben? That we stay there indefinitely? That part of the world has been unstable since ancient times and shows very few signs of stabilizing anytime soon so, if we’re still there to try to secure the unsecurable, we’re wasting time and some kids’ blood.

Unless there is a clear and definitive plan and a timetable to hand over the reigns to the Iraqi Military/Police, we should leave as soon as cargo planes can gather up our troops and fly them the hell out of there.

So, what do propose Ben? That we stay there indefinitely? That part of the world has been unstable since ancient times and shows very few signs of stabilizing anytime soon so, if we’re still there to try to secure the unsecurable, we’re wasting time and some kids’ blood.

Unless there is a clear and definitive plan and a timetable to hand over the reigns to the Iraqi Military/Police, we should leave as soon as cargo planes can gather up our troops and fly them the hell out of there.
Posted by asdf at June 1, 2005 03:13 PM

I would argue that two years is an amazing level of progress for Iraq to have gone from where it was to where it is, and that Iraq is stabilizing at a very rapid rate, considering how long Nation Building takes.

Let me try this one more time. French intelligence never said Iraq had WMD. The United Nations inspectors left Iraq and concluded there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. Mr Putin said he'd seen no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. From the defector Curveball we received reliable information that Iraq's unaccounted for weapons were destroyed. Hans Blix was trying to verify this by ana-lyzing soil samples to see if he could quantify the precise amount of WMD destroyed in 1991.

The sarin shell that exploded went off as an IED and did not form any sarin. People who mishandle hydrochloric acid in high school chemistry labs must be treated for "exposure" on occassion. A weapon of mass destruction results in mass destruction, not in simple treatment for "exposure."

David Kay's conclusion that Iraq didn't have any WMD was not based on interviews. Since Mr Kay was offering such a nice finacial incentive to anyone who would provide information on the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD, many Iraqis came forward and told Mr Kay what he wanted to hear.

However, Mr Kay later concluded that if Iraq had sent weapons to Syria there must've been a production facility or enterprise that was engaging in WMD production. So Mr Kay and the ISG looked everywhere, at every facility, and concluded there was no WMD production facilities at all in Iraq, so, ipso facto, no weapons were sent to Syria. This was a conclusion based on evidence, not interviews.

Blaming terrorism on the Middle East status quo is one of the more pathetic excuses I've heard to justify this war based on lies. Afghanista and Pakistan -- the origin and source of al-Qaeda -- are not even in the Middle East. Iraq played an instrumental role during the 1980's in halting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East. When did Osama become our enemy? When we desecrated the holy land with infidels. When did Saddam become our enemy? When we ran his country out of Kuwait and placed a grueling embargo against his country. None of this has anything to do with the status quo in the Middle East -- whatever that means -- but with a foreign policy that inevitably creates more enemies than it eliminates. Just as the war in Iraq has now created a Sunni insurgency and a Shi'a uprising through Muktada al-Sadr, the continuation of such a policy will only take us farther down the road to more war and more conflict.

The truck convoys moving into Syria prior to the war has become a grand obession of the Bush cultists, right up there with the Roswell crash for UFO enthusiasts. Weather balloons aren't as scintillating as alien conspiracies, and neither is the truth about the truck convoys into Syria.

"I had seen miles-long truck convoys when I was in Kurdistan in 1994 and 1995. Syria came late to the game but was more than making up for that in sheer volume. Most oil went through an old pipeline to the Syrian port of Baniyas. Some came in by truck." Sound familiar?

"I had seen miles-long truck convoys when I was in Kurdistan in 1994 and 1995. Syria came late to the game but was more than making up for that in sheer volume. Most oil went through an old pipeline to the Syrian port of Baniyas. Some came in by truck." Sound familiar?

Sounds like a poor attempt to take what was very clearly a suspicious truck movement that went from Iraq to Syria even as US forces were moving into Iraq and rationalize it away as an Oil Shipment, of all things.

A sloppy attempt to justify you're self-loathing "Blame America First" view on Foreign Policy.

The large majority of World Intelligence Agencies believed Saddam had WMD, this is well documented. If Hans Blix did not believe Saddam had WMD he would not have requested the UN pass Resolution 1441. If the Security Council did not believe him, to some extent, they would not have passed Resolution 1441. If France had not stubbornly vetoed, The Security Council would have authorized Bush's request to act.

"Blaming terrorism on the Middle East status quo is one of the more pathetic excuses I've heard to justify this war based on lies. Afghanista and Pakistan -- the origin and source of al-Qaeda -- are not even in the Middle East. Iraq played an instrumental role during the 1980's in halting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East. When did Osama become our enemy? When we desecrated the holy land with infidels. When did Saddam become our enemy? When we ran his country out of Kuwait and placed a grueling embargo against his country. None of this has anything to do with the status quo in the Middle East -- whatever that means -- but with a foreign policy that inevitably creates more enemies than it eliminates. Just as the war in Iraq has now created a Sunni insurgency and a Shi'a uprising through Muktada al-Sadr, the continuation of such a policy will only take us farther down the road to more war and more conflict."

First off Al Sadr has largely calme down. His 'revolt' carries little steam.

The Iraqi Insurgency is popuarly characterized as a "Sunni Uprising" Though Sunni radicals are certainly involved, almost all of the Insurgency's Leadership and Funds come from International Jihadist movements. If Jihadists from all over the Muslims world had not descended on Iraq, there would be no real Insurgency to speak of. The Leadership is almost entirely un-Iraqi. The funding behind the Insurgency is almost entirely un-Iraqi. The Political Force behind the Insurgency is almost entirely Un-Iraqi.

Osama became our enemy when we desecrated the holy land with infidels? I assume you mean the existence of the state of Israel? That's Bull. Osama is not largely involved with prominant Palestinian Nationalists organizations such as the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetera. The Al Qaeda Network is a group of WAHABBIST Muslims. The destruction of Israel is secondary to their primary goal: The Spread of an Islamic Revolution across the Middle East, the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, and a Renewed Islamic Empire stretching from Morocco to the Philippines. The idea of The United States of America, and anything American, existing in the Middle East horrifies them. It is Bin Laden's stated goal to drive America and everything American out of that region of the world for all time. You're basic idea seems to be that we should do everything we can to appease him. We should remove all support from Israel, we should introduce a total pull out of troops from the Middle East. In short we should give the man who murdered 3,000 Americans exactly what he wants.

My general view on dealing with those who attack America is this: We should defeat them, not do what they ask.

Maybe we should have introduced a troop pull out from Hawaii and given it to Imperial Japan? That may have gotten them to stop!

You seem to function of the idea that if you keep throwing steaks to a hungry tiger, that tiger will eventually become a vegetarian.

Next Issue: Why Iraq?

Saddam was helpful, when he served his purpose. He stopped serving that purpose shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq War. He became a threat not long after that, when he invaded and annexed one of our most prominant Middle East Allies and Trading Partners.

Let's examine why Iraq fits with the Bush Doctrine's call for Strategic Middle East Democratization.

A.) Why should we make an example out of Saddam?

Saddam went to war with America and survived the experiance. He was the face of the Arab dictator overcoming the United States. After surviving in 1991, Saddam was right on the verge of succesfully getting UN sanctions agaiinst him dropped. He had gone to war against the only Hyperpower in World History and come out with a firmer grip on power than he went in with. He was now about to, with the help of France, get sanctions against him dropped. Ba'athis Iraq was THE MODEL for Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Operation Desert Storm sent one strong message to the dictators and terrorist factions of the Middle East: It is entirely possible to fight America and survive. If it is possible to fight America and survive, we can only come to the conclusion that it is possible to fight America and win. The very existance of Saddam was a snub at the United States.

It is clear that making an example out of Saddam has had it's desired effect in scaring the pants off of other Middle East dictatorships, as the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon without a peep, Mubarak rushed to hold "elections" in Egypt, Saudi Arabia did the same, the Kuwaiti National Assembly hurriedly legalized women's sufferage, The Lybians rushed to unveil their secret WMD program, and the Iranians made a show out of opening up negotiations with the EU over their Nuclear Arsenal.

We have put the fear of god into the governments of the Middle East.
WHY WAS IRAQ A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR DEMOCRATIZATION?

Iraq has long been one of the most strategically important nations in the Middle East. It is a very large nation with traditionally a very powerful military by Mideast standards, and an oil supply that makes it easily possible for a booming Iraqi economy in a free society. In fact even now the Iraqi Dinar is shooting up in value on the world market as a storm of investment surrounds an Iraq extremely optimistic about it's economic future.

When looking to promote Democracy in the Middle East, a good place to start is one of the regions' largest, most important, and possibly both economically and militarily powerful nations. A free and democratic Iraq as a key player in the Middle East could help revolutionize the region.

BUT WHY DEMOCRATIZE THE MIDDLE EAST? WHY WOULD THAT HELP COMBAT TERRORISM?

If history teaches us anything it is one thing: The world is driven by economics.

History shows us that the economically desperate will listen to radicals. The Russians to Lenin, the Chinese to Mao, the Iranians to the Mullahs, the Germans to Hitler, the list goes on and on. Radicals thrive in economically disparate conditions.

The same kind of conditions that the Middle East Status Quo encourages today. Gabdel Nasser's dream of Pan-Arab Nationalism, a world in which the Middle East was as rich and modern as Europe, where Israel was destroyed, was Ultra-Secular. It was in many ways an assault on traditional Islamic rule. But Nasser was recieved with open arms by the Arab people, and is to this day remembered as a hero in the Arab world. They loved him. Why? Not only because he promised to destroy Israel.Because when they were economically desperate he promised to deliver them. He promised a new Arab dream in the face of an Economically Desperate Arab world. The same promise Hitler made to the Germans and Lenin to the Russians, and Mao to the Chinese.

His promises of course were never fufilled. Nasser sided his people with the losing side of the Cold War, the Arab-Israeli wars were smashing Arab defeats, and when Nasser died he had done nothing to improve the lot of the Average Arab.

They were still Economically Desperate, there was still room for Radicals.

The year is 1979. Enter the Mullahs. The Islamic Revolution sweeps Iran and promises to sweep the Arab world. Muslims everywhere call out in triumph as the promise for the return of a vast Islamic Empire, for religious and economic good times, sweeps the Arab world.

Promises again are not fufilled. The Revolution never travels beyond the borders of Iran. Since then Terrorism and Radicalism have dominated the Middle East. The culmination of this was manifested on September 11th 2001, when 3,000 Americans died.

If then, we know that Economics Desperation breeds Radicalism, and we know that Middle East Radicalism is our enemy, what can we do to combat it?

Alleviate that Economic Desperation? But that could never work!

After all it westernization, Democratic Government, and Economic Free Trade didn't alleviate the threats that were posed by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy!

Oh, wait, yes they did. As long as the Middle East is a world of economic and political desperation it will be a world of wild radicalism that threatens US interests and security. We would kill Bin Laden and accomplish nothing. If we do not address the causes of our problems than we cannot solve them. We cannot seek to treat the symptoms of a disease and ignore the disease itself.

Far-Right anti Bush conservative Foreign Policyt thought operates on two main principles.

A.) It is possible for the US to exist in a hubris, seeking to protect only it's immediately visible interests, always stopping at that point, never moving beyond to address greater world problems.

B.) It is not practicle for the US to set about changing the world in order for it to better suit the United States.

Both principles have been disproven time and time again by History.

Hubris isnt the right word. I meant a Bubble. Paleocons seem to commonly think the US can exist walled off from the rest of the world, that it can ignore the problems of the world as if those problems will never reach our shores. History teaches us that they usually do.

Yes, that’s right. We should be using our military resources to guard our borders and keep out anybody who shouldn’t legally be here. We shouldn’t be using them to protect peoples of another country or in the support a nation building effort in a land that has virtually no strategic or economic value to us.

Send troops outside the country ONLY when there is a legitimate reason to do so. That is, when there is an event or series of events that demonstrate a clear and present danger to the United States.

So, what’s the answer? When do we bring them home? When do we get out?

Even though there was some justification to go there in the first place, there is currently little reason to be there. Eventually the American people are going to tire of having their sons and daughters come home in body bags and it will be the late 60’s, early 70’s all over again.

Send troops outside the country ONLY when there is a legitimate reason to do so. That is, when there is an event or series of events that demonstrate a clear and present danger to the United States.

So, what’s the answer? When do we bring them home? When do we get out?

Even though there was some justification to go there in the first place, there is currently little reason to be there. Eventually the American people are going to tire of having their sons and daughters come home in body bags and it will be the late 60’s, early 70’s all over again.
Posted by asdf at June 2, 2005 09:52 AM

You are advocating an outmoded vision of Foreign Policy. In the modern world the interests of a nation extend far beyond it's own borders. If lived in France, or Germany,we could advocate such a 'defene-only' policy.

We do not. We are citizens of the United States of America. The only Superpower in the world. The only Hyperpower in human history. There is rarely a place on Earth you can go where there are not United States Interests that need to be protected. Currently in the Middle East we are facing a conflict that will not be ending anytime soon. Lazy Americans raised with their vision of war being Kosovo and Kuwait are trained to believe war is a short term conflict. Watch CNN for a few weeks, see the pretty green lights. By the time you're bored of it the boys are back home and causalities have been minimal.

The War on Terror is not a week long war. The War on Terror is akin to only two conflicts in history: World War II and the Cold War.

Why? Because like in World War II and like in the Cold War in order to win the War on Terror the United States will have to remake the world. Reforge the image of Earth in the heat of battle.

Iraq has no strategic or economic value to us? One of the least factual statements I have ever heard. To win the War on Terror we must remake the Middle East. We had to remake Europe in the 40s, we had to remake the world in the subsequent years to stop Communism from taking over. Now in this conflict, we must remake the Middle East.

Iraq is one of the largest nations in the region, located at the very heart of it. Traditionally, in it's pre-Saddam years, it was one of the most economically powerful nations in the region. At the height of Saddam's rule, it was one of the most militarily powerful nations in the region, second only to Israel. If we must remake the Middle East in the image of democracy, what better place to start than a nation right at the heart of the Middle East with the potential to be a dominant economic and militray power?

As far as economic value to us, Iraq's oil trade will end our dependence on the Saudis, and introduce a booming economic trade relationship between the US and Iraq.

We will stay in Iraq as long as it takes. It will never be like Vietnam. In Vietnam multiple hundreds of Americans were killed every day. In Iraq, on an extremely bad day thirty or forty Americans die. The Wars are not even comparable in scale.

Already Iraqi Security Forces are picking up their end of the bargain. US forces are finding their role to be more and more in providing Armored and Air Support for ISF troopers, as Iraqis begin to pick up the infantry part of the war.Obviously this is far from complete, but it is happening. Already the US has begun it's troop reduction campaign, going from having approx. 150,000 Americans at a time in Iraq to having approx. 100,000 Americans at a time.

This is not Vietnam. Nor however, is it the movie Top Gun. This is war, not a pretty CNN event for us to watch for a week then go back to our normal lives. The Americans of yesteryear would be appalled at the lack of resolve the average American holds in his heart today.

Wars take time to win. Wars take money to win. And if we don't win this war, what then? We may just kill Bin Laden and his top aides, then go back to our lives.

And next time maybe it will be the Empire State that comes crashing down on top of us. Maybe they will set off a dirty bomb in Chicago next time. Maybe next time it will be millions, not thousands, of Americans who die.

And what then? Another Clintonesque "Fake War", come over, shove them around, show them whose boss, and then go back home?

That's not how one wins a war.

The Old Right is enamored with an America that is just like any other nation. An America that moves to play the defensive in any war. They believe that it is impractical, impossible, even immoral, for the United States to, instead of changing to better suit the world around it, change the world around it to better suit itself.

History shows us that not only is it possible, it is sometimes necessary.

For better or for worse the United States is the world's dominant power. We are the Leader of the Free World whether we wanted it or not. The Old Right was eager, after WW2, to go back to being the isolationist nation that we were, attempting to wall ourselves off from the problems of the world with the atlantic and the pacific. It didn't happen. After the Cold War they wished for the same.It still did not happen. 9/11 happened. The new war is here.

We aren't going back to that. For better or for worse, we are the world's hyperpower. Our power, our influence, and our national security interests extend themselves to every corner of the globe.

Our role is inescapable. It's time to buck up and deal with it, not seek for ways of escaping it that are never going to manifest themselves.

Ben,

I appreciate your passion with regard to this topic and believe me; I think our initial reasons for entry into this quagmire were good and noble. But I’m sure you’ll be surprised to know that I still disagree with you and don’t believe that our role in the world because we are ‘the only Superpower’ is to monitor events around the globe and force the views of our nation on people of different cultures and beliefs who may not be receptive to them. Unless we want to colonize and enslave populations to do this (thus, extended military presence), I don’t see it happening. You can’t be buying freedom and bending regimes using our fine and very impressive military. The cost is too high.

We will never be able to fix all of the world’s problems. There was chaos before we became a Superpower and there will continue to be chaos that we will have no control over. Fight against terror wherever necessary to preserve or safety and security, yes. Maintain a presence to force our way of life, no.

I say we work on dissolving some of our own chaos at home before we take on the world.

Also, please don’t patronize me by insinuating that I think war is something antiseptic to be digested through the filter of the nightly news. That’s my point. I know a bit about combat and understand that war is dirtier than anybody can imagine. That’s why I believe in taking care of the business at hand, completing the operation to the extent that we get the results that our presence was originally intended to get and then leave when that operation has reached its conclusion and our goals have been reached. Mission completed, bring the boys (and girls) back home.

As far as having an outmoded vision of foreign policy, when (in recent history) have we not gotten involved in conflicts where there may have been no purpose to do so? From after the Civil War to date, we have constantly been involved somewhere around the world to fight for something. I think that is the current ‘mode’. I’m advocating what would be a relatively new concept where we ONLY get involved in world affairs when it is specifically in our interest to do so.

I do agree (after our initial reasons for going in) that the only good that might come out of an extended stay in Iraq will be $35.00 a barrel oil. Other than that, do we really care if Iraqis have a democracy, watch Gilligan’s Island reruns or are able to go to a McDonalds?

America should only be in a fight when that fight is in defense of its people or its sovereignty and protecting its own. Not for the purposes of nation building or protecting the indigenous peoples of another country or when trying to foist our values and culture on other peoples around the world.

It’s interesting that you seem ok with giving up 30 to 40 lives a day to contrast our losses of hundreds a day in Viet Nam to demonstrate that Iraq (Afghanistan) is not the same. Wake up and smell the coffee my friend. I hope it never happens and I really hope we’re not having this same conversation when THERE IS a count of over a hundred a day.

Now who’s viewing the war through the ‘pretty CNN’ perspective? These are real sons and daughters and should only be considered expendable for the most serious and noble reasons.

I'm glad we can seem to come to a meeting of the minds asdf.

Couple things i take issue with:

1.) First off, as you already know, I strongly disagree with your assessment that this war in Iraq does not serve US interests. In the interest of a broader Middle East Strategy I see Iraq as quite vital for reasons I have already stated. I agree with you that the US should only fight where it serves US interests. I however, see US interests transcending a broader goal. We can assume that the object of US foreign policy should fall under three categories:

A.) Protect US National Security
B.)Protect the Foreign Interests of the United States
C.) Maintain US Hegemony

In that order of importance. I would argue that to complete all three of these objectives in the modern world, we must remake the Middle East in a more democratic and tolerant image.

2.) I wouldn't call Iraq a quagmire. Nation building is something that takes a long time. We have been in Iraq for two years. Going, in two yeras, from where Iraq was, an economically stagnant dictatorship, to where it is now, a democratic society with an extremely promising economic future is progress that is quite quick, given the standards of nation building.

3.) I am not trivializing the loss of American lives. I am simply pointing out that, from a strategic standpoint, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. In Vietnam we were holding down a tyrannical puppet government that was hated by the people. In Iraq, the large majority of the people are on 'our side' as it were. Only in the Sunni minority do we see much genuine sympathy for the Insurgency. In a war of this style, it is impossible for the side that is going against the will of the people to win. In Iraq, the Insurgency is going against the will of the people.

As to you're comments about McDonald's and Gilligan's Island, I will let Condoleezza Rice speak for me.:

"We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions where people can claim a freer future for themselves. We recognize that there is no 'one size fits all' solution. Our vision of the future is not one where everyone eats Big Macs and drinks Coke-or where every nation has a bicameral legislature with 535 members and a judiciary that follows the principles of Marbury vs Madison." -Condoleezza Rice

Eric

I'm a bit pressed for time right now but I will briefly try and address some of your points. The truck activity going into Syria prior to the war represented an increase in the normal amount of traffic. I think I documented this previously. I am not being a "Bush Cultist." What I am doing is expressing scepticism in the conventional wisdom. I have provided much documentation to support my position. As I have tried to make clear in other posts on this blog, I am no Bush fan. Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer have not been able to fully account for what was transferred to Syria. They have admitted this. Mr. Duelfer says further investigation is warranted. The investigation into the Syrian connection seems to have been primarily conducted through interviews of former regime officials. If Mr. Kay concluded their were no WMD facilities in Iraq he was wrong. Our troops found a chemical weapons lab in Fallujah when it was taken last November.

The IED that was used appears to have been a WMD. Fortunately it was used improperly. We were very fortunate. I hope and pray we can continue to be this fortunate. The military commanders, in the field, who were interviewed on Fox News soon after the incident did not agree with the assessment that this was not WMD. As stated previously, this does not necessarily mean there is a stockpile. I hope there are no Iraqi WMD stockpiles. I simply do not find any compelling reason for optimism here. I would simply advise that we not be so hasty to sound the all clear on Iraqi WMD. The investigations need to be completed.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

I think I've posted this before, but just in case I haven't I'll do it again.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm

UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES

AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL

Is everyone here capable of reading and comprehending this title? While the United Nations agreed to UNSCR 1441 there was no human intelligence to support the idea that Iraq had or was producing WMD. After Hans Blix enters Iraq and searches in all the hotspots our intelligence identifies he comes to the conclusion our intelligence is absolute garbage. Here is Blix:

"Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say."

"I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

This is critical because it proves we knew -- Blix knew -- our intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD was wrong before we went to war.

Canadian journalist Eric Margolis also cited French intelligence, DGSE, and mentioned they said Iraq had no WMD.

Iraq was moving lots of illegal shipments of oil into Syria and other neighboring states so there's very good reason to believe the truck convoys going into Syria were part of their illegal shipment of oil. It's the best explanation.

I didn't mention anything about Israel. Osama became angered with the United States when we put soldiers on the holy land of Saudi Arabia. While Osama later made protests against our support of Israel, it wasn't a factor in transforming him into an America hating jihadist.

The rest of the arguments now made in support of the war are flimsy, ridiculous and contradictory. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are trying to quell a Sunni insurgency. The majority of the people we capture and kill are Sunnis. Most of the Sunnis show a passive support of the insurgency, which means it will be almost impossible to eliminate the insurgency unless we kill off most of the Sunni population.

As far as arguments like: we should make Iraq a democracy because democracies don't support terrorism is just absurd. Bush cultists make this argument and then turn around and accuse democracies, like France, of supporting terrorists. So Bush cultism refutes Bush cultism. Criticism isn't even necessary.

Eric

The intellegence agencies of most of the world did believe that Saddam possessed WMD. I previously documented this. The journalist you cite may have chosen to re-write history. This used to work before the invention of the internet and other alternative media. The report you reference, in your previous post, points out that large amounts of proscribed items were unaccounted for. The foremr regime either a.)destroyed them or b.)concealed them. Given the massive deception employed by the former Iraqi regime, I think option b is far more likely. The report you refer to discusses the fact that the totalitarian nature of the former regime led to some credibility problems. David Kay documented some of the deception employed by the former regime. In any event, Saddam could have removed all doubts any time he chose to do so. Instead he chose continued beligerence. Had he cooperated with us, as equals, instead of supporting our enemies and trying to deceive us, he would still be in power and the sanctions would be gone. He left us no real option but to assume he still had these WMD. Given the fact that he had used them before, his hatred of us, and his ties to terrorists who hate us left us no reasonable choice but to assume he planned to use them against us or to supply them to someone who would use them against us. This left us no choice but to remove him. The sanctions option was no longer a viable long term solution. The UN oil for for food scandal made certain of this. The following contains more information on the former Iraqi government's attempts to deceive the weapons inspectors:

www.therant.us/staff/salvato/world/wmd_of_saddam_huessein.htm

http://fpc.state.gov/14337.htm

www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021008-dod01.htm

www.defense.gov/news/Oct2003/n10032003_2003100035.html

If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for the deception. As the first link points out, David Kay's team was able to uncover things the UN was not. I have to say this shook me a bit. If Blix and his team found things in three spots and nothing in the others, the apporpiate response, especially given the nature of the former regime, should have been "where did it go?" This causes me to question his credibility. In any event, as Senator John McCAin and others have pointed out we were relying on the intellegence of others, as well as our own.

I don't really have much faith in the UN or Hans Blix. Hans Blix once stated that certain members of the Bush administration wanted the UN to "sink into the east river." While I dispise the UN, the Bush administration does not. His statement is silly. Silly anti-American rants, such as this, lead me to question both his sanity and his credibility. Also, given that key members of the UN were in league with the former regime, I would not put much faith in any thing the UN says.

The shipments into Syria could have been illegal oil shipments. I don't think so. Neither did the ISG. David Kay said they were full of "Iraqi equipment" that could not be identified. Israeli intellegence reports indicate these shipments were transferred to the Bekka Valley and buried by Syrian special forces. Oil shipments would not need to be buried nor would special forces need to guard them. Israeli intellegence is probably the best in the world. It needs to be for the country to survive in the sea of hostility it lives in. I already posted the documentation, nevertheless, here it is:

http://cshink.com/syrias_role.htm

Charles Duelfer and David Kay agree that this warrants further investigation. It could turn out to be nothing but I would suggest not being so hasty to sound the all clear on Iraqi stockpiles of WMD. Expressing skeptiscim at the conventional wisdom does not make one a "Bush cultist."

Yes we did put troops in Saudia Arabia. This was to done to protect Saudia Arabia from his ally Saddam Huessein. You mention Israel. Israel is the most important buffer between us and Islamic terrorists. Even if Israel disappeared today, this would not make us safer. All it would mean is the terrorists assets currently deployed against Israel would be deployed elsewhere. Probably in a neighborhood closer to us.

The Sunni insurgency is largely being directed by a combination of foreign fighters and former regime elements. Your statement that most of the people we capture and kill are primarily Sunnis may not be entirely true. The recently completed Operation Matador involed mostly foreign fighters and the locals are beginning to help us. More on this can be found at:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/05/foreign_element_1.php

Also this article reveals more information:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html

I don't think it is neccessary to kill off most of the Sunni population, nor would we. They will eventually grow tired of foreign fighters and former regime elements getting them killed. This is already beginning to happen. Sunnis are beginning to particpate in the political process. More information can be found at:

www,sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=topnewsarticle=UPI-I-20050521-09275300-bc-iraq-sunnis.xml

It is the former regime elements and their terrorists allies who must NEVER be allowed to return to power. To date the primary value of the Iraq war has been that it has caused the terrorists and their former regime allies to divert resources that would have been used to support world wide terrorism into trying to recaputre Iraq. This has made us and the world safer. David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and Senator John McCain agree with the assessment that we and the world are safer without Saddam Huessein. These men are not "Bush cultists."

You write: "We should make Iraq a democracy because democracies don't support terrorism is just absurd." The Bush policies may not work. I have serious doubts. I hope and pray they do work. What Bush does understand is the situation on the ground will need to be changed. The status quo is no longer acceptable. That is unless we like having our buildings blown up. Bush's opponents have yet to advance anything that is better. If we are to win this war, at a minimum, the governments of Syria and Iran will need to change behaviour or they will need to be removed from power. I'm no Bush fan. I think we need to be more aggressive. Expressing skepticism at the various leftist talking points does not make me a "Bush cultists." America does not exist in a vacum. The actions of others have a direct impact on American policies. The terrorists and the regimes who support them will need to examine their roles in all of this instead of resorting to a knee jerk blame America mentality.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

I don't know why this is so difficult to follow. President Bush was very clear about the evidence we had regarding Iraq's WMD. "Intelligence...leaves no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to conceal and possess some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." The United Nations inspectors were equally clear: no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. It is gravely dishonest for President Bush to state that "intelligence" leaves "no doubt" Iraq possesses WMD. What intelligence/evidence was President Bush citing?

Eric Margolis said before the war in Iraq began that no WMD would be uncovered in Iraq. He wrote how many of his readers warned him against going out on a limb, but he turned out to be right. No one is trying to re-write history.

"Fears are one thing, hard facts are another. Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." Mr Putin

French intelligence, DGSE, also saw no evidence Iraq had WMD.

The notorious defector Curveball sold most of the tall tales about Iraq's WMD along with the Iraqi National Congress's unreliable defectors. While the United Nations did sign on to UNSCR 1441 they didn't find any evidence Iraq was a threat or was stockpiling metric tons of WMD.

Again, the debate isn't about what someone "thinks" about Iraq's WMD, but what is the evidence. And there was no evidence. Neither Hans Blix, David Kay, nor Charles Duelfer can prove a negative so the onus is on those who claim Iraq did have WMD. They had no evidence -- falsely claimed the did -- and took the country to war on the wings of a lie.

David Kay has all but ruled out the idea the weapons were shipped to Syria. Here are his comments:

"If weapons had gone to Syria, they had to be produced. If weapons were produced, they required at least three things: a productive enterprise, scientists and engineers to work on it, security people to guard and move them. We go out and we try to find those, and we used every legal technique that was available to us. I had - probably the only time in my life I'll have it - a $10 million revolving fund and a stack of green cards. You come tell me where the weapons are, where they were produced, your involvement in it, and you can move to San Francisco, and we'll set you up for life. One of the stories I quickly discovered in Iraq: a lot of people would fabricate, so you had to be careful (I have a stack of offers to sell me red mercury, which doesn't exist), and they wanted to move very large villages. They were all part of their immediate family. But they didn't exist; they didn't come forward. We searched the country for the large, productive enterprise that would have been required. We couldn't find it; it didn't exist, as far as I'm concerned. My conclusion is: Large weapons stockpiles didn't exist, so ipso facto they didn't move to Syria or Lebanon. And that's about the best you're going to do."

You might find Hans Blix unreliable but he originally thought Iraq had WMD as well, but after realzing how poor our intelligence was came to doubt it. He now thinks the "unaccounted" for weapons were done destroyed in 1991 -- information we received directly from Lt Gen Hussein Kamel. The CIA has "re-adjusted" its estimates and now favor the idea that the "unaccounted" for weapons were destroyed in 1991.

I don't consider Israeli intelligence to be free from political bias so naturally I don't put any faith in it.

The Bush Administration's case for the war in Iraq is silly. The rhetoric seems to be "we're trying to make Iraq a democracy because democracies don't support terrorism." Then you have the same right-wingers claim that democracies, like France and Germany, support terrorists. So they justify the war on the grounds that democracies don't support terrorism and then accuse democracies they don't like of supporting terrorism. So again, Neocon gibberish refutes Neocon gibberish. Criticism isn't necessary.

right-wingers claim that France and Germany support terrorism?

BS. Strawman. No validity to the claim.

As a general rule democracies do not go to war with each other. For evidence of this, see the history of the human race.

You then go on to dismiss every other argument for the Iraq war as being "flimsy" in order to avoid debating real ideas, and talk about WMDs some more. At this point it is irrelevant. The case was strong to say Saddam had WMDs. The vast majority of world intelligence agencies BELIEVED he had WMDs. Generally, having to make the choice, I will trust the vast majority of world intelligence agencies over one journalist you cite on a blog.

You're post was nothing but a recap of you're old argument, some irrational anti-Israel rant (Apparently they wanted the US to go to war with Iraq out of a general sense of Jewwy mean spiritedness, as Iraq posed no economic or military threat to Israel, and Israel had nothing to gain with the fall of Saddam Hussein.) quotes from one journalist, and overall a sloppy attempt to avoid the fact that, from a basis of large scale strategy, you are wrong about Iraq and wrong about the Middle East. As usual, gargantuan short-sightedness dominates the Old Right viewpoint.

For such a champion in the defense of American interests and only American interests, do you ever pause to wonder why the American people in general, post-WW2, have remembered the Old Right with such Revulsion?

Eric

"What intellegence/evidence was Bush citing?" He was citing the CIA and other countrries. As has been stated the US based its case to a large extnet on the conclusions of other countries. As John McCain stated, German intellegence was used. The Germans were probably the most alarmist of all. They believed Saddam could have a nuclear weapon by 2004. Bush's CIA director told him the case was a "slam dunk." Clearly our intellegence needs to be improved. As David Kay pointed out the intellegence community owes him an apology.

If Eric Margolis said no WMD would be uncovered, he was wrong. I already documented this. WMD has already been used against our troops. It was not used properly so the damage was not what it could have been. I hope we continue to be this fortunate. This significantly harms his credibility.

Mr. Putin did, at one time, think Saddam had WMD. He also warned the administration that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against us. More on this at:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/06/60minutes/main693422_page2.shtml

www.conservativelife.com/blog/index.php/2004/10/29/11_reasons_why_attacking_iraq_was_the_ri

He is former KGB and his country was the main weapons supplier of Iraq. I'm not sure I would put much stock in anything he says. It seems he changed his story in October 2002. Both the Washington Times and Newsmax have reported that Saddam's weapons may have been moved by Russian special forces. In any event, we now know why the Russians and French were opposed to the removal of Saddam Huessein.

As I stated previously due to Saddam's hatred of us, his attempts to decieve us, and his support of others who hate us, it left us no reasonable option but to assume the worst. He could have removed all doubts any time he chose to. He opted not to do so. Bush did not lie. Clearly errors were made. The weapons are not "there." I think the most likely reason is they were moved. Perhaps they never were there. As long as the left and the old right continue to accuse the Bush administration of lying, they will have no credibility.

To produce weapons you need three things. 1.)Productive enterprise. They had this. A chemical weapons lab was found in Fallujah when our troops took it November 2004. It is possible the facilities were moved in the run up to the war. The ISG was unable to close the books on this possibility. David Kay says "Iraqi Equipment" was moved. 2.)Scientists and engineers to work on them. Saddam tried to keep these intact. It seems he succeeded. As the ISG stated Saddam maintained a significant break out potential. 3.)Security forces to move them. The convoys and their contents were guarded by security personnel. Saddam had everything necessary. The people who could shed light on this are probably being sheltered by Syria or involved in the so-called insurgency. Many people who cooperated with us were killed. The Syrian connection was ana-lyzed to a large extent based on interviews, as David Kay admits, they may not be reliable. The general consensus that large stockpiles were not moved and did not exist may turn out to be correct, nonetheless, I'm a bit puzzled as to why Kay and Duelfer are so optimistic that large stockpiles were not moved. In any event, I'm not going to question their motives. In spite of their conclusions, they both believe that the removal of Saddam Huessein was the correct decision.

No intellegence will be entirely free from political bias. Unfortunately this is simply how things are. Given the situation Israel finds itself in, it probably has the best intellegence in the world. It needs to, in order to survive in the face of the implacable hatred of its enemies. I put more trust in it than in the CIA, Russia, France, or any other country.

The unaccounted weapons may have been destroyed or they may have been moved elsewhere. In light of the actions of the former regime, Blix should have asked where the weapons went rather than to impugn the US or its allies. Given that the ISG was never able to officially answer the Syria question, I suggest we not be so hasty to sound the all clear on Iraq's WMD stockpiles. His quotes that Bush administration officials want the UN to "sink into the east river" or that the Bush administration was trying to "undermine" him are the quotes of a political hack or a stark raving mad man. He has no credibility.

"Neocon gibberish." It is not just the neocons who supported the removal of Saddam Huessein. Most of the Republican party supports it. Most of the democratic party did at one time. They seem to be divided on the issue now. John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Charles Duelfer, and David Kay support the decision to remove Saddam Huessein. This is just to name a few. None of the aforementioned are neocons.

I honestly do not know if the current plan of spreading democracy will work. The only other options avaliable that I can see are, A.)Change the terrorist supporting regimes to democratic forms of government because historically democracies don't war with one another, as documented by history. B.)Go with the leftist or paleo-right idea and simply appease them. C.) Colonize the terror supporting states or replace their governments with an American puppet government. Option B is the one we tried, for the most part. We did throw in the occasional weak kneed response. Our weak kneed responses only further reinforced the terrorist belief that America was weak. Following a variation of otpion B mixed with weak kneed responses lead to 911. Given current geo-political realities option C will not be acceptable. So the only option on the table is the one proposed by the Bush administration. When the Bush critics cease accusing the Bush administration of lying and come up with viable alternatives, they may gain some credibilty.