Centerfield

Good points, Rick. Broadly speaking, I sense that we need to take this out of the pro-war/anti-war realm. Whether you agree with the war or not, at this point we're all in the same boat. We need to figure out how to make this policy work.

Something tells me our protracted debate over the wisdom of the war is preventing us from focusing on the specific policy changes we've needed to make to give us the best chance of success. For example, I suspect we needed to realize early on that the overall size of the U.S. army is inadequate, and to begin adding a few divisions. We needed, as Thomas Freedman says in his column today, to pursue more of the Powell doctrine (overwhelming force) than the Rumsfeld doctrine (which was geared towards illustrating the effectiveness of smaller forces). We've needed better diplomacy and a more creative approach to getting other nations involved. We probably needed to apply more resources to the problem of various types -- more training, reconstruction, etc.

I think the pro-war folks were less able to focus on those issues due to their commitment to an upbeat view on how things were going, and the anti-war folks don't want to expand our presence or the amount of resources we apply to this.

The politics of this issue seems, on the whole, pretty dysfunctional.

Rick raises two interesting points, one about Iraq and one about Guantanamo.

On Iraq, the problem remains that from day one, Bush underemphasized the real goals of the mission. Much of his dialog early on focused on regime change and WMDs. He allocated the resources appropriate to changing the regime, changed it, and ascertained that Iraq is not overrun with WMDs. Missions accomplished. So why are we still there?

We're there because those were never the real missions, they were simply the ones easiest to sell to the American people. Neither one of them made any sense at all. Bush's critics were correct that tighter sanctions and more intrusive inspections could probalby have served those goals at least as well as military intervention.

The goal of this mission from the start has been to change the rules of the game--something that Bush always claimed, but that he buried for a long time to win over his Realist wing. Our posture in the Arab world has long been simple: the more authoritarian the better. Westerners have never much trusted Arabs, and the ability to put a single recognizable face with whom we could deal in charge of them always seemed to work. And so we--along with the Europeans--supported the House of Saud, Saddam, Arafat, Mubarak, and anyone else who could "keep those people in their place." We would have welcomed Assad had he agreed to play by at least some of our rules--much as we have recently welcomed Qaddafi. These folks have done more to trample the aspirations and the human development of Arabs than anyone in the West.

We went into Iraq to announce: NEW RULES! We care about human rights--and if you continue suppressing them, we will shift our recognition from you to your dissidents. Basic human dignity precedes either Westphalian sovereignty or some notion of "self determination." Bush has been rhetorically wonderful on this point; his refusal to allocate sufficient resources is more incompetence than anything else.

Unfortunately, his dissembling early on cost him much credibility--even (particularly?) among those who considered him highly credible at the time. We're still in Iraq because we made a multi-generational investment, and the insurgency is surging because Bush is either unwilling or unable to admit what it's going to take to do it right.

Guantanamo is a different matter. The problem there is that we have rules to deal only with criminal defendants and with POWs. We suddenly found a new category of people dangerous enough to detain: terror suspects. The problem is that they don't fit into either category. If we call them criminals, we will either extend full constitutional protections that will make it impossible to investigate and thwart terror plots—or we will erode those protections to enable anti-terrorist methods to emerge (likely both). If we treat them as POWs subject to Geneva Convention protections, we will simply house them and feed them forever (or until the war on terror is over, whichever comes first), and learn nothing useful from them. Clearly neither category fits the situation, and none of these outcomes are acceptable.

Early on (before 2001 was out), I heard both Alan Dershowitz and Newt Gingrich (independently) push for a new set of rules appropriate for terror suspects. Nothing has happened on that front. The Democrats had the perfect opportunity to push for such a draft during Alberto Gonzalez’s confirmation hearing, but they chose instead to go for cheap political points. In the meantime, the administration has concluded that because it neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention bind it, it can do whatever it wants—a problem for anyone who believes that government power is always limited. I recently asked Richard Posner what he thought about this situation. He commented—in a manner reminiscent of Justice Jackson’s Korematsu opinion—that he preferred the current situation. As he sees it, rules tend to legitimate the otherwise illegitimate. Under the current situation, people can respond to exigencies as they occur, and risk either the political or legal consequences.

That caused me to rethink where I stand, though I do still prefer the push for a new set of rules.

With regard to Guantanamo Bay, we cannot, of course, release prisoners who might return to the battlefield.

That's not what would happen. The prisoners would be sent to other prisons.

As I've said before, if it looks like American wavering could cost us a winnable war, I really hope centrists will prevent that calamity from occurring. Anti-war people should not punish Iraqis when they mean to punish Bush.

Adam, isn't each individual's judgement on winnability a precursor to the wavering?

I haven't passed judgement on winnability other than to feel it's not currently clear that it's unwinnable. But I have a vision in my head of what unwinnable would look like...a contentious and crappy constitution, continued violence at recent levels, and creeping consensus among Iraqis towards the view that we should leave.

So if your point is that centrists are positioned to and should make the case on winnability, I think I agree. However, I'm not convinced centrists can alter others views on winnability. And much as I see the Iraqi pragmatic tolerance quotient for American troops as mostly a one-way street (it will generally trend down over time), I think people's views on winnability are going to be sort of one way as well. The antis will stay anti, and the pros will stay on board unless and until they believe winnability is gone. Few who pass over to believeing the effort is unwinnable will pass back. Just my $.02.

I'm a little concerned over what constitutes "winnability" as opposed to winning. This comes about, I believe, in trying to second-guess strategy and tactics in the midst of a campaign. Some of it comes from folks who want Bush to fail, regardless of the cost of that failure, both to the US and to others.

Some of it comes from this new ability for all of us to instantly comment on what's going on (as in Fallujah) as it is occurring.

And some of it comes from anti-Americanism, both foreign and domestic.

As a reader of history (not really a student), I wonder whether the D-Day invasion, or Iwo Jima, or Okinawa would stand up under similar critiques. We don't really have to worry about that today because the historians have, by and large, answered that question. But was WWII worth it? Let's see - it deposed one great mass murderer (who never really threatened US security, but generously declared war on us), and solidified the legitimacy of at least one more.

For me, this war on terrorism is the great issue of our time. The obvious resolution is the democratization, first of the Middle East, then of some Pacific Rim countries. Our mission in Iraq, it seems to me, has been roughly analagous to our invasion of North Africa in WWII - not really the main theater of the war, but an important training exercise leading to a terrific staging area. I think the war will go on for a long time, and I think that if we follow Bush's program it should lead to great changes that, in fact, will make the US and the world safer and more tolerant.

But I am reluctant to criticize the tactics in advance of seeing the results. And if I were to criticize the tactics, I would have to note that I have no particular experience on which to base my criticism. If I had to rely on others' critiques, I would do so only after careful examination of their qualifications (I believe that I have more military experience than Tom Friedman, for example). And even then, I would try to avoid coming to any firm conclusions about the conduct of the war.

I will say that so far, we have turned two rogue states into democracies, and seem to be converting some more, at the loss of American lives of roughly half that experienced on Omaha Beach alone. I don't speak lightly of the loss of American lives; as a veteran, each one of them has, for me, a face and a hometown and a family.

But if we can convince the world that the world will no longer tolerate some kinds of bad behavior, then it seems to me that this may be the most virtuous and least bloody conflict in world history. This is, after all, a war for liberalism (in the classic sense).

As to Guantanamo Bay, I spent six weeks there about 35 years ago. It is a prison. It has walls, fences and minefields that separate it from Cuba. Camp Xray is, therefore, a prison within a prison. Even if the inmates were able to escape, they would not be able to return to the battlefield. I am not aware of any equally secure place within the control of the US. I think it is an ideal spot for enemy combatants.

I would agree with William that the present situation in Iraq now goes beyond politics, regardless of the validity of how we got there. In this light I don't see this as Republican weakening but healthy debate. One point/question I would add. Does the war in Iraq divert terrorist activity elsewhere.

AS for Gitmo, its always bothered me. In a very broad sense I'd ask is the benefit of holding this enemey combatants worth the "international" costs?

One issue that covers both of these situations, "In the war on Terror how do we measure security and safety? Is today a 'safer' day or just another 9/10/01?"

I've always felt that a "centrist" position on Iraq would be one that avoids relexive criticism and also blind cheerleading. Whether we support the war or not I think is less important that whether we're willing to reject both side's propaganda.

Problem is, who among us is a military expert or has experience on the ground in Iraq? I might be able to say that it seems to me we could have handled the post-invasion much, much better, but how do I know that for sure?

That's why it's essential that Congress get involved. I think they pretty much abdicated their responsibility to examine matters closely before the war, so maybe they can make up for that now.

I have, personally, been supportive of our efforts in Iraq, but I'm concerned that we have no real means to gage progress. Yes, democracy has moved forward but the violence remains alarmingly high. And I'm pretty confident in saying that a free society cannot truly take root under daily terrorist attacks on civilians.

How can we slow the violence and create the conditions under which most of the troops can come home and Iraq can become a real democracy? I think it's a good thing Congress is beginning to question things. We need to be thinking about this war.

I might be able to say that it seems to me we could have handled the post-invasion much, much better, but how do I know that for sure?

Easy--hindsight is always 20/20! We could always have done things better than we did. All we need is the psychic ability to foretell the future with 100% accuracy.

Tully,

Exactly. It's really easy to look back on it and say things should have been done differently. Just because things went wrong doesn't mean there was a way to make them go right.

Then again, we should still question how things went wrong and make sure we do have a plan for getting them back on track.

Any war is winnable. The question is what are you willing to pay for a victory!

We won WWII because we committed 100% of the nations fortune, people and resources to victory. We also did not flinch when it came time to wipe entire civilian populations off the map. (Hiroshima Nagasaki Dresden )

How much are you willing to pay for Iraq?
How many dead Iraqi's are acceptable?
How many dead Americans are acceptable?

We could simply kill all the Iraqi's. Fire bomb and carpet bomb the population centers.
Or we can draft enough Americans to put a cop on every corner (known our causality count would go up initially)

Brian,

The most important thing to remember is that most of America is moderate. While your assessment of the wingers is accurate, I believe that middle America could lose faith (and even seems to be), and that this is what centrists should combat. Also, I hope that even people who felt that the war was a bad idea (I haven't made up my mind on ths) would try to make the best out of a bad situation. If we can bring stable democracy to Iraq, let's do it. So I think centrist should act to combat an irrational shift of opinion.

I agree in general with your notion of winnability: if we're doing more harm than good and the Iraqis want us gone, it's time to go.

However, I really do think we can win this war. My approach is to show such a commitment both by the US and other nations, including ones that didn't support the invasion (you can always hope), and basically force the Sunnis to compromise. I think once the Sunnis compromise, the terrorist groups will be treated by everyone including Sunnis as criminals. It's just a fragile alliance now. Also, at present we're basically serving as defense forces for a government elected by Shiites and Kurds, and I think they realize that we're on their side.

I think we definitely need a discussion on Iraq, but the discussion should focus on how we can win this thing, not whether Bush was a criminal. For instance, some Democrats are going nuts over the Downing Street Memo, and the freedom fries Republican is calling for a timetable. I'm all for improving strategy, but not a timetable. Basically, the insurgents are trying to lower morale here because I think they realize that if we're committed and we just keep building the Iraqi forces and the Shiites and the Kurds are with us, they will lose. I wouldn't be opposed to raising troop levels a bit, say 10,000 if only to lower their morale. I thinking removing troops just will make them fight harder.

I will say that so far, we have turned two rogue states into democracies

If I were you editor, I'd insist you change this to so far, there are signs that we have turned two rogue states towards democracy, at least for the time being Let's not suggest that we're sure we've got the rock rolling downhill just yet.

Any war is winnable.
Bob, this is only true if you conceive the idea of every war very narrowly as violent combat. In my view, the true war in this caseis for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Iraqis. Do you really not understand this? Do you deny this? Or are you only being viciously facetious so that you can speak blithely of murder?

My approach is to show such a commitment both by the US and other nations, including ones that didn't support the invasion (you can always hope), and basically force the Sunnis to compromise. I think once the Sunnis compromise, the terrorist groups will be treated by everyone including Sunnis as criminals.
Fine, if it works. The underlying problem there is that you are presuming or hoping for rationality on the part of the terrorist insurgents. It's an open question whether they can be persuaded to behave as rational political actors. Psychologically speaking, I have serious doubts. My sense is that many have hardened themselves to reflexive opposition until either death or victory. the hardened ones aren't coming over, red rover.

I forget who said it, but the following quote always haunts me: any true revolution requires the sacrifice of an entire generation. By invading and liberating Iraq from SH, we committed an entire generation of Iraqis to sacrifice, bloody and otherwise. The price varies from person to person, but each gets a bill.

Adam,

I'm finding your position on this troubling. You seen to assume that it is the role of "centrists" to promote the war and keep the American people in support. That seems to be your own definition of centrist. Well, I consider myself a centrist and I think the war is a disaster. I am not going to become a shill for Bush policy that I consider bad. You seem to think that we are obligated to stifle any criticism in order to promote policy that you obviously supply, but guess what, not everyone does. Your argument seems to be that, well, even if you disagree with it, we are already there, so let's support the policy even if it's bad policy. I have no problem with your supporting Bush's policy or the war if that is your opinion. However, please don't say that the task of centrists is to prevent "an irrational shift of opinion." Irrational to whom?

Frankly, it's sort of ludicrous to argue that the way to win the war is for all countries, including those that didn't support it, to show committment and force the Sunnis to compromise. Why should a country that thought it was a bad policy in the first place now decide to become committed to it? And I think you are naive about "forcing" the Sunnis to compromise. How do you do that? Bomb the hell out of them and kill them all?

LR,

"And some of it comes from anti-Americanism, both foreign and domestic."

Again, I find it disturbing that people attribute any criticism of the war or Bush's policy to "anti-Americanism." Certainly that exists, but is merely opposing the policy anti-American?

"As a reader of history (not really a student), I wonder whether the D-Day invasion, or Iwo Jima, or Okinawa would stand up under similar critiques."

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are arguing that the great battles of WW II would have been subject to second guessing, it misses the point. People might well have (and in subsequent years have) questioned the various tactics and strategy used in these battles. But the point is these battles were part of an overall strategic goal of winning the war. No one that I am aware of questioned the need for these battles or the casualties they entailed because there was a consensus on the need to win the war. And no one seriously questioned the particular strategy, in part because this was classified--the government didn't go around talking about our strategy. However, it is interesting that the government tried to suppress newsreel footage that showed American bodies, obviously out of concern that the pictures would undermine support for the war.

"We don't really have to worry about that today because the historians have, by and large, answered that question. But was WWII worth it? Let's see - it deposed one great mass murderer (who never really threatened US security, but generously declared war on us), and solidified the legitimacy of at least one more.""

This seems to be the gist of your argument, equating the Iraq War with World War II. Virtually no one has questioned the necessity of WW II. But are you really equating Saddam with Hitler? As far as Hitler not threatening US security, that's ludicrous. First of all, we would have had a major industrial and military power controlling Europe. That's not threatening US security? Second, Hitler was planning to fight the United States at some point for world supremacy; he had begun planning bombers that could reach the US. There is no stretch of the imagination that would envision Saddam ever being in the same position as Hitler would have been. Comparing Germany in the 1940s and Iraq in the early 21st Century really doesn't hold up too well.

"For me, this war on terrorism is the great issue of our time. The obvious resolution is the democratization, first of the Middle East, then of some Pacific Rim countries. Our mission in Iraq, it seems to me, has been roughly analagous to our invasion of North Africa in WWII - not really the main theater of the war, but an important training exercise leading to a terrific staging area. I think the war will go on for a long time, and I think that if we follow Bush's program it should lead to great changes that, in fact, will make the US and the world safer and more tolerant."

We can argue, I suppose, about whether the "democratization, first of the Middle East, then of some Pacific Rim counties" is an appropriate reason to launch a war. I don't think it is. But your analogy about North Africa agains makes no sense. Hitler invaded and occupied North Africa; it wasn't his country. We were already at war with Germany. I'm shocked at your idea that it's ok for us to attack Iraq as ort of "training exercise." That's more than imperialism--that's neofascism. (No, I'm not accusing you of being a fascist and I know you are not but that's the implication of what you are saying.)

I find it rather arrogant, frankly, to say that the United States can decide when it is ok to launch a war to "make the US and the world safer and more tolerant." Wow! Who died and made us arbiter of the world. Now, don't get me wrong; I am all for encouraging democratization and I'm all for using force to protect our vital interests when necessary. But an elective (and unprovoked) war to make the world safe for democracy? I'm sorry, count me out of that.

"But if we can convince the world that the world will no longer tolerate some kinds of bad behavior, then it seems to me that this may be the most virtuous and least bloody conflict in world history. This is, after all, a war for liberalism (in the classic sense)."

You mean convince them by bombing the hell out of them and invading them? What kinds of bad behavior won't we tolerate? Saying this is a war for liberalism and is therefore ok, I find that a breathtakingly sweeping and arrogant declaration. Talk about the ends justifying the means. And you wonder why the rest of the world is scared to death of the US?

I apologize for the length of this comment. BTW, can someone tell me how to put quotes from other comments in italics?

bk: I have always view the war as a reckless adventure.

Regardless of my views on how and why we got here, I am at my core a pragmatist.
Once a war starts, and the blood and horror become evident, it up to pragmatists to ask the hard questions. Like: What are we doing here? How much will it cost? Is it worth it? How many people are you willing to kill?

Marc, you can either use html blockquote tags as illustrated at the bottom of the comments box, or you can use the html for italics, which involves preceding the words you wish to be italicized with "i" and "/i". Each of those tags have to be surrounded by

--the "less than" symbol (shift-comma on your keyboard)on the left

_and_

--the "greater than" symbol (shift-period on your keyboard) on the right

Thanks Brian.

Hi Marc,

Geez, all I'm saying is we should make the best of a bad situation.

When I say irrational, all I meant was that if most well-informed people who are not wed to an ideology think it's time to go, we should go. I was just trying to clarify that I didn't think we should stay there no matter what.

In general, I am an ethical utilitarian, and believe we should do what's best for the greatest number. And I don't just mean for those living now, but for the future of the world. And I guess I feel that democratizing the middle east probably fulfills that criterion. But look, I could be wrong. So really I don't think, I'm being at all controversial. I am just saying people let's do the right thing, and let's determine the right thing through rational discussion.

Marc, what do you think we should do? Pull-out immediately? All I want to do is make decisions that are in the best interest of the Iraqi people, make decisions that will maximize their long-term well-being. If it could be shown that pulling out immediately were the best way to do that, I would fully support it.

The only thing I was concerned about was people just saying, well this war isn't going so well, let's just pull everyone out, and to hell with what happens to Iraq. That's what I'm talking about. That's the attitude I'm talking about. When I say irrational, I mean an attitude which fails to take into account the likely consequences for Iraq and even for the US. If the place goes to hell, and becomes Bin Laden 90210, we might just have to reinvade again for own security.

Now, I guess we have very different views about the role of the US in the world. A few years before 9/11 when people described to me what was going on in Iraq, I thought we should take Saddam out. That is not because I have imperialistic dreams of world domination or because I thirst for blood. I viewed it in a very simple way. The US is a big strong dude. Saddam is not nearly as big as we are and he's terrorizing millions of people. We can stop him, so we should. If I'm walking down a street and I see some guy beating the daylights out of his wife and I have the power to do so, I definitely would. To me, this war was a defensive war. Defending the Iraqis from Saddam.

You seem to express outrage that the US should decide what is acceptable in the world. Well I pose a thought question to you. What if the US didn't exist? What if North America just vanished? Who would have held the balance in WWI and WWII and the Cold War? The US has done selfish, even perhaps at times evil things abroad, but on balance I feel the US has done far more good than harm. I just feel the US has a moral obligation to help those whom we can help.

And I am not saying that my policy is a good one, my impression was that the Sunnis were fighting for a greater role in government. I guess I distinguish between Sunnis insurgents and terrorists. I guess I feel the Baathists are more interested in power than they are in a religious viewpoint, which is why I think they're more likely to compromise. I could be completely wrong; I am by no means a foreign policy expert.

Again, all I am advocating is that we think before we act, and if we think the US population is trending towards a policy which is likely to be disastrous, we should combat that. That's all dude.

As to foreign countries, all I'm advocating is that hatred of Bush should not be a factor in their decisions to help us or not.

I'm not sure if we did the right thing in Iraq, but I'm glad Saddam's gone. Basically, I think 30 years from now, the average Iraqi citizen can tell us whether we did or not.

Adam,

I apologize if I misunderstood what you said, which it seems I might have. I'm not advocating an immediate pullout. FRankly, I don't know what the hell to do? But I don't think it's irrational to conclude that the current policy is a disaster. And the problem is that you seem to be saying (or could be saying), this policy was a disaster, so we have to continue with the policy no matter the consequences. I believe we do have to stay the course to some extent because, "we broke it, now it's ours." But I'm disturbed by the idea that we should just shut up and hunker down.

WWI and WWII simply aren't good analogies to Iraq. IN WW II, we were forced into the war by two aggressively militaristic powers that would, ultimately have threatened the US directly. WW I is more debatable, but still there was a militaristic power capable of dominating Europe. None of this is true with respect to Saddam Hussein even if he did have WMD.

As for democracy, it's a grand and noble thing. But not at the point of a gun. Your analogy about seeing someone beat up someone else and you intervene has a surface appeal, but it simply doesn't apply to relations between states. First, it would be as if we saw someone beating someone else up and in order to stop them, we blew up the other houses on the street. And defining this as a "defensive" war because we are defending Iraqis from Saddam is sort of a unique twist of phrase. I simply don't think we have the right to invade another country because we decide that they need a new government. Moreover, that's not even the primary justification that Bush gave--presumably if there were no suspicions of WMD, there would have been no invasion. Ostensibly, if Saddam had come clean on all his WMD, there would have been no need to invade; yet he still would have been terrorizing his people. And the argument could be carried to many countries that we are not even thinking about invading.

I agree that the US has, in general, been a force for good. But I don't think this is the way to do it. War is a drastic instrument; it should be the last resort not the first.

Thanks, Marc.

I do think you misunderstood me, but probably some of that is my fault. My initial position before coming to centerfield was a decidely pro-war stance, and sometimes when I post I forget to add the nuance in certain places.

I am not at all saying we should "shut up and hunker down." A vigorous, examination of strategy as well as a clear exit strategy are critical. I am opposed to a timetable because I think our actions should be determined by the facts on the grounds and not by an arbitrary edict.

Perhaps, I overreacted to the news. I see that poll numbers are sagging for the war in Iraq, and that most are opposed to increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Also the DSM is swirling about, and the "freedom fries" guy is calling for a timetable. All I am concerned about is that public sentiment is based more on "feelings" than "facts." I just don't want us to squander an opportunity if one does exist. Now, if drawing down the number of troops is the right thing to do, then that's fine with me. My call to centrists was if the public gets swept up in irrational anti-war fervor, we should not let that occur. When I say "irrational," I mean that most people with cool heads and a knowledege of the specifics feel the public is endorsing a potentially calamitous strategy. So my true fear is not of an open and honest public discussion, but of the effect that the "Bush is Satan"/ impeachment crowd might have on the discussion. I guess those were the people I was calling on centrists to hold the line against.

Probably because of our pre-war stances, you're more concerned by the super-hawks and I'm more afraid of the "radical left."

WWI and WWII were just invoked as evidence that the US is in general a force for good.

You're right that Bush is inconsistent about where we apply the rule for war, and used WMD as the primary justification. However, my position differs from Bush's position. I think we should have taken Saddam out during the Persian Gulf War. And I think we should take Mugabe out now (if we had the resources to do it and we had support of most of the world's democratic governments). I would have supported taking out Saddam even if 9/11 didn't happen because "he is a very bad bad man." Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should invade everyone who is behaving badly, but I am saying we should invade those who are unquestionably "evil." However, I would not use the policy if invading were likely to result in disaster. (On Iraq, I don't have enough expertise to make that judgment, and disaster would be defined differently by different people.)

In my mind, I agree that we shouldn't invade a country just because we disapprove of its government, but if the country is being subjected to egregious human rights violations, I think we ought to.

Also, IMO we're not democratizing Iraq at the point of gun, we're not saying, "Average Iraqi citizen, democratize or we shoot you." Rather, the Iraqi people want to determine their own fate, and we're letting that happen by removing those people who don't want that to occur.

I also agree that war should be a last resort. But my criterion for invading differs from yours. If Saddam had promised to gradually turn Iraq into a democracy, then no need for invasion, otherwise . . .

I don't think the policy is an entire disaster. After all, as Condi said, the Iraqis have met every deadline set before them. I think we should wait to see how the constitution goes before we make that assessment. But in terms of security, well, it seems to be that way--a disaster.

Maybe I'm unrealistically hawkish. But I feel that sometimes, sadly, great things require the loss of life. The American Revolution and the Civil War, for instance, both of which we didn't have to fight, but we are probably better off for having fought them, resulted in great loss of life. I'm not comparing Iraq to these domestic situations, only to illustrate that sometimes wars fought for causes (establishing independence, keeping the US united, and today democratizing Iraq) are necessary.

I guess we just differ on when and where it's justified to wage war. I hope that the loss of life in Iraq will be overshadowed by economic and cultural success in the long run. I guess we'll just have to wait for the history books to decide.

In any case it's hard to come up with a centrist position on whether or not to invade Iraq. I mean, we either do or we don't. But hopefully, centrists can cooperate in figuring out what we should do now. Sorry for the length, I have a tendency to "bloviate."

I screwed up the italics on my post. Only irrational was meant to be italicized.

Adam;

The most important thing to remember is that most of America is moderate.

I thought most of America was deluded? ;-)

Well, if they're deluded they're only moderately so :)