Is the (current) reason that we're fighting in Iraq that the terrorists are all out there (somewhere) and they have to be fought (somewhere) and it's Iraq because Iraq was chosen by the admin. years ago for previously listed reasons? (and things are really as good as can reasonably be expected?)

How truly sad that the best we can do at promoting peace in the world is to lead a probably endless "war on terror" against an "enemy" that must be "utterly defeated" for us to "be safe".

Sounds very familiar too. Is this not the usual state of things? The United States, mankind in general, have never seen long periods of real peace. We can blame everything on "evil" in the world or "evil" people but where does that get us? It's still up to us to intelligently respond. Is war the only way to oppose "evil"?

A letter writer from Sunday claims that " there are many parallels between this war and WWII", the one that he cites being that when we were attacked by Japan we declared war on Hitler too, because "we knew that he was really the same threat". So the parallel is in our response, then and now, not in the situation. Germany and Japan were countries (making them easy to find) with powerful and aggressive armies and navies which were occupying countries and sinking ships and posing a very real threat to world peace. Can we say the same about the "terrorists"?

Or are we at war with the Islamic world? Kill 'em all? That's usually how you fight "the enemy", right? Kill 'em all? Or is it Islamo-fascism (not a word) that we're at war with? And how do we kill them all? Start by hoping they're all in Iraq, I guess.

Here's a question for ya (especially if your name is George Bush):

If the people that we're fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here are really terrorists intent on destroying our "way of life" (over here) then why are they in Iraq, and not over here attempting to destroy said way of life through acts of terrorism, suicide or otherwise?

Could it be that they are in Iraq because Iraq is what is important to them? Could it be that even though we have done very little to safeguard the home front, it's not that easy to pull off a major terrorist action? Could it be that the way to respond to 9/11 is to tighten security at the airports and at sporting events, try to find Osama bin Laden if we must and then go about our lives?! We don't need to have a "War on Terror"!

The fighting in Iraq is another issue. For whatever reasons, right or wrong (or a little of each?), we are fighting in Iraq. Some of our objectives have been accomplished (and some have been proved to be unfounded). What remains? That depends. Did we set out to impose democracy upon them? I hope not. Remember when (some of our) forebears went around imposing Christianity on anyone they encountered? And/or killed them?

Maybe it should be more to allow them to determine for themselves what their type of government will be. The big problem with that, of course, is, who are they? Is there a true Iraqi national? Is there a true Iraq? What?

If we have a role, and inevitably we do, it can/should only be to provide security. It can't be up to us to decide the course of their political future.

This would likely not be especially popular with the current administration (nor any likely future one). The desire to bring order to the world is not hard to understand and our way of life IS the best, right? As for providing security only: it would essentially be police work, always a thankless job. And who knows what would emerge as the new Iraq? I don't think the powers that be like very many of the possible outcomes. Anybody?

"Happy" anniversary everyone. I propose that we observe it by not killing any innocents anywhere in the world today. I promise. Will you?

Yes, yes... what to do now...

In my opinion that would be to start governing right. By that of course I mean my perception of right though if you tell me there is only one "right" than we both shall be forced to accept what I am about to lay out. Government of, by and for the people. The people!

We need to start acting our age. We're 230 years old, for chrissakes and we're acting like we're 23. The most important thing in life isn't money (read those bibles). We don't have to respond to every provocation with military might, just because we can. When students learn martial arts, some do feel the need to "test" their skills in the world (not just the dojo), but mature students do not.

Appropriate response is the way of most arts, at least the Japanese ones that I know of, not just killing as always the answer (although their Samurai tradition was that).

In any case, when looking at the Iraq situation we need to acknowledge that we've made a mess with our stubborn need to order the world so that we can continue to consume most of the world's resources and have the greatest country in the world in which to be rich (possibly middle class too, though definitely not poor, but then they always have it rough).

To me it comes down to ideals. What do we stand for? That's a tough one and again we get into this idea that there is more than one truth. Ask George W. what his concept of "America" is. Now ask your dad. Now ask yourself. If our stated goal was something like "government of the people, by the people, for the people for the continuous enrichment of the human race", what do you think our foreign policy would be like? In what ways would people of other countries behave toward us? Would they hate us? Would they try to kill us? Or would they act like most of us do when someone treats us with honesty and respect and try to work together and live rich full lives? Of course we'd possibly have to learn to exist with multi-million dollar corporations which are not the most rapacious organizations, economically speaking, in the history of mankind.

I'm not much of a Bible reader usually but I know that somewhere in it, in one of it's lucid passages, it says "...the love of money is the root of all evils". If we accept the Bible as having value in our American society (and don't we?) then why do we not accept this simple truth. First. We can worry about the finer points (like gays and capital punishment) once we have our house in order.

What would that all mean in Iraq now, today?

This is a response that I wrote on another blog on which somebody was attempting to justify the invasion (of Iraq). The blogger has written that the reason that no shots were fired in the cold war (wasn't Viet Nam part of the cold war?) was that the Soviets knew there would be repercussions to anything they "started" (like when they invaded Afghanistan and we boycotted the Olympics see? consequences). He was claiming that Hussein felt no such constraint.

"He actually believed he could fire any weapon he wanted and not get fired on in return..." Who says, you? Rush Limbaugh? A lame attempt at justifying what should have been Bush's first reason for going in (according to Charlie), to effect regime change.

The idea that we should openly declare our intent to bring about "regime change" in a sovereign nation is unprecedented and, in my mind, unwarranted here. In fact, no single "reason" that I've ever heard holds any water at all. WMDs? Were none. 9/11? Even Bush says no link (now, in 2006). To effect regime change? I don't think they actually said that, did they? I think what they said was it was necessary to disarm him. Well at least they did do that but that's where the plan stopped. Unfortunately, the trouble did not.

No, none of the reasons are valid and they never were; the idea was to throw out a lot of (bogus) reasons and let the number of them lend weight of its own (never a good idea).

The reason that it's such a mess is because of the muddled reasoning that went into it. Akin to building a house using all faulty materials; will that house stand long? It's hard to fight a war without clear objectives. You can say our objectives were clear (the reasons listed above), but clear objectives based on fallacy don't get you anywhere. The mission "should" have been go in, disarm Hussein, whatever that means, finding all WMDs and "safing" them, apprehend all 9/ll plotters and then assist the spontaneous uprising of "democracy" and come on back home with our heads held high. But we couldn't because there were no WMDs, there were no 9/11 plotters or aiders/abettors (some sympathizers though, oh yeah) and disarming Hussein and changing the regime (oh, we've changed it all right, we just don't know what to) didn't "win" us anything and certainly hasn't won us the war, on terror or even in Iraq.

The question still remains, however: what to do now?