I see no contradiction between having believed that an attack upon Iraq was a risky and premature, and wishing for an effective and efficient victory for our military. Now that matters are in the hands of the military, who are more competent at their jobs than the Bush Administration is in the diplomatic field, I'm optimistic that the conflict will be run as professionally as possible. The focus has to be not on the process that led to the war, but the prevention of a drawn-out conflict, so as few lives as possible will be lost. A quick resolution will prevent the loss of perhaps thousands, avoid prolonging the war so as to encourage terrorist and other reprisals, and start the task of rebuilding Iraq.

There isn't any point in resisting the fact of the war. If there is to be any progressive input on what happens after the war is over, then there has to be a determination to press right now for postwar objectives. Like:

The commitment of as much capital and effort as necessary to rebuild Iraq, politically and economically. This is going to take years, not months, so the patience that wasn't on display in the moves toward war is going to be sorely needed.

The war may have been a mostly Anglo-American enterprise, but the rebuilding of Iraq almost has to be an international effort. Bringing NATO and other nations who opposed the timing of the war into the planning stages for a new Iraq would be a step toward rebuilding alliances, which are going to be needed to keep the pressure on terrorist organizations.

The oil reserves of Iraq should be placed in a trust for the benefit of the Iraqi people. While I opposed the start of the war, I never believed it was "a war for oil". Making it clear as possible, as soon as possible, that Western oil companies are not going to get a windfall would go a long way toward convincing the world that the motives for the war were benevolent.

After all this has been started, there will be plenty of time to examine the botched diplomacy and misplaced priorities that led to conflict. If we are lucky, the outcome of the war might be just as rosy as its proponents advertised... Iraq without the dictatorship of Saddam, on the road to self-determination, with less risk of the use of catastrophic weaponry. If we aren't lucky, the most optimistic objectives will remain unmet, with the added risk of increased terrorism and damaged alliances with the international community.

Nearly all of the content of this site concentrates on frivolous things, but I couldn't let current events go on without using this small corner of the internet to express my thoughts in my admittedly tiny way...

Within a day or two, George W. Bush and the United States government is going to do something unprecedented. It is going to war without direct provocation, without the consensus support of the American people or our allies, without authorization from Congress or the United Nations.

Nobody can have any illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a tyrant who has terrorized his nation, threatened his neighbors, and developed terrible weapons. No right-thinking person can want anything but to reduce the threat he poses to the world, and to eventually see his regime ended. Most experts on Iraq, who know much more than I, believe that there are any number of ways to accomplish this.

Unfortunately, The President of the United States sees no other option to war, and seems to have never seriously considered anything but war. His single-minded focus on a military solution (against, if reports are to be believed, the most reasoned judgment of the Pentagon) has been fueled by a long-standing belief on the part of his closest advisors that Iraq should be forcibly conquered. Even before 9/11, they targeted Saddam, and since 9/11 they and the President have engaged in a dishonest attempt to convince the public and the world that there was a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, and that Saddam poses a direct and immediate threat to American interests. Despite their best efforts, they have been able to convince less than half of the American public that an attack upon Iraq without United Nations support is justified.

Even less of the international community has been convinced. Worse than that, George Bush has taken all the sympathy and good will that America enjoyed after 9/11 and trashed it. On September 12, 2001, millions of people all around the world would have done anything to aid in wiping out the treat of terrorism. Instead of capitalizing upon that, the President has focused on a target that very few believe has a significant connection to international terrorism, and by appearing to act unilaterally and without convincing our allies of the need for military action, he has dramatically weakened friendships and association that had been built over decades. To much of the world, the United States appears to be acting with reckless disregard of the rule of law and the rule of reason.

I expect the actual conflict with Iraq-- the removal of Saddam and the dismantling of their weapons systems-- to be a short one. Properly utilized, the US military is certainly capable of defeating Iraq in short order. If that were the end of the story, the prospect of war would not be so frightening. The real danger comes from revitalizing terrorist groups to strike around the world; from the costs and dangers of occupying Iraq and attempting to subdue revolts over a period of years; from introducing more instability into a region already too unstable; from creating the impression that the United States is engaging in a modern-day crusade against Islam; from the damage done to our relationships with nations that we must depend upon to construct a safer world; from the dangerous precedent of a preemptive strike which could be copied by nations whose ultimate goals are far more malevolent than ours.

I pray that the war will be quick and decisive, with as little cost in lives as possible. I sincerely hope that none of the most dire predictions for the war and its aftermath come true. I want to give every aid possible to our military that actually has to fight the war and face its dangers.

But I have nothing but disappointment for the government which has put our military into this situation when it was not absolutely necessary, and without consideration of any other path. All my life I have been irritated by the old slogan, "I love my country but I fear my government." How could that be, I wondered? In a republic, a government is the embodiment of a nation. Even when disagreeing with what a government has done, there should always be the sense that it has acted according to due constitutional process and without disdaining the opinions of the public.

I still don't agree with the statement above, but in this case George W. Bush has done nothing but impose a policy upon the country without respecting the opinions of nearly half the population. To the extent that polls show support for the war on Iraq, I believe it is mainly because people have lost any hope that their opinions matter and think that the Bush Administration will proceed regardless.