- First off, you constantly mention Ireland as fighting with the Allies during World War Two. IRELAND DID NOT FIGHT IN WORLD WAR TWO, it was officially neutral and sat the entire war out. It may not be central to your arguements, but it undermines your overall credibility.

- You may not like the French, but let’s be fair… the Vichy government was a puppet government setup and ran by the Nazi after they overran France. It was not elected by the French people and could hardly be said to represent them. Before France fell, its armies fought hard against the Nazi and many French citizens risked their lives with the resistance during occupation.

- You mention Japan invading China, but then fail to list China among those that fought the Axis. Also (as long as you are counting British Commonwealth countries separate from England itself) why no mention of India. Many Indians and Chinese fought and died in the war (far more then Irish ).

- Comparing Saddam’s Iraq to Nazi Germany in terms of its ability to take over the world is simply crazy. Nazi Germany was a large, first rate industrial nation whose army and technology was equal to (or better) than any other country in the world at the time. It was a Super Power. Iraq (even at its prime) was a relatively small poor third world country who had to import second rate equipment from other countries because it could not built any itself. Iraq was not even able to defeat Iran in the Iraq-Iran War despite Iran being disorganzied by revolution.

Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, but considering they did not even really have a Navy, do you honestly think they were going to invade and take over the United States? No Middle Eastern country has the numbers or technology to invade and take over the United States, end our freedoms, and put us all under the rule of Islam (that is just silly). Even if they got the bomb, we would not surrender and have their soldiers marching down our streets (if that were the case, the Soviet Union and/or China could have done so).

The only organization in the world right now with the numbers, economy, power and technology to limit the freedoms of American citizens is our own government. Other countries might hurt us, but none could realistically take over the US and put us all under their rule.

Of course, any country in the world has the power to cause hurt and kill American citizens. Protecting our lives and safety is very important and a valid reason for military action (freedom does not mean much if you are dead), but safety and SECURITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS FREEDOM. Some of the most authoritarian and overbearing countries in recent history also had some of the lowest crime and murder rates in the world (usually lower than in the US). Freedom usually implies a certain amount of risk and safety and security usually implies a certain loss of freedom. I am not against fighting for security and safety, but let’s be clear about what we are fighting for in the War on Terrorism – it is safety and security, not freedom and liberty.

Lastly, without rehashing the debate about how much Saddam was or was not involved with international terrorism, it was obvious that whatever the involvement, it was much less than many other countries in the region. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladin their leader was from Saudi Arabia, and the Wahhabi movement which you identify as one of the prime inspirations of terrorism was founded in Saudi Arabia. NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAD MORE TIES TO 9/11 THAN SAUDI ARABIA AND YET THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG IN THE BIGGEST ACT OF APPEASMENT IN THIS COUNTRY’S HISTORY.

To use your World War comparison, what if on Dec 7, 1941 an aide and rushed into the President’s office and said “Japanese planes flown by Japanese pilots have just dropped Japanese bombs on Pearl Harbor!” and the President said, “We must do something! Let’s declare war on Bolivia!”. It would be considered crazy and yet that is what happened with Iraq.

After Saudi Arabia, the country that has supplied the most terrorist leaders and supporters is Egypt and we continue to give them billions in US tax dollars. We went after Iraq not because they supported terrorism, but because it was the easiest target in the region due to its political isolation from surrounding countries and the general disdain of many of its citizens.

Now I know (and agree) that it is a complicated situation. The official governments of these countries try to be friendly (or at least civil) with the US (though they are hardly nice democracies either). The governments of both Saudi and Egypt are sitting on a hostile population which contains many people who support terrorism. We can’t attack those terrorists directly without upseting the somewhat friendly goverments on top of them and risking a worse government replacing them (which is also why we are really in no hurry to see true democracies in those countries either). It is a difficult situation, but let’s not pretend that it does not exist.

We went into Iraq not becuase it was major supporter of anti-US terrorism (it was not compared to other countries in the area), but because we thought it was the easiest target to bump-off (weakened by sanctions, hated by its own people – and most importantly – isolated from other countries in the region because of the Iran and Kuwait Wars). The main goal (certainly now) of going into Iraq is to setup a successful democratic, safe, properous nation and hope that its appeal will cause those movements to spread to surrounding countries (like Western Europe did to eastern Europe during the Cold War). It is not the worst plan in the world and not without merit, but it is no slam-dunk (as we are learning).

As we debate this complex region with often hazy boundries between friends and foes, lets at least be honest about the complexity of the situation and get our facts straight.

If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism.

You’re right.

You are right about nearly everything. A couple of minor points:
Claiming the Jihadi will “fade away” or that Iraq will ever be a “stable, peaceful, democratic” anything is pretty much at odds with the rest of your thesis. The extremists (and all extremists aren’t terrorists) will always be around in one form or another to cause one kind of trouble or other.

What you’re proposing, in shorthand, is genocide. We have to wipe out all the terrorists everywhere permanently, because if just one of them gets nuclear capability, then their beliefs pretty much require them to gloriously suicide and take as many of their enemies as they can with them. I can understand this point of view. But America has never been good with genocide. We care too much about what others think, about having allies. Even if you can get everyone on board with war, genocide is a pretty hard sell.

There are those who figured that’s what Bush had in mind all along- that Afghanistan & Iraq were supposed to be the first stops in a military world tour that was to include Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Do you think it’s coincidence that Libya surrendered while we had troops parked down the block from them?

And, in a way, that’s the right thinking. Because as long as Iran, North Korea, WHOEVER still has nuke capabilities and doesn’t play by the “Safe Sane Consensual” rules that civilized nations use (and no one can convince me that Iran’s leadership or Kim Jong Il is anything but nuts) then you have to take them out, or its only a matter of time before they want to play nuclear russian roulette. Peace demands an end to hostility, and the end of enemies requires conquest.

But then, here we are, sending our bad-ass military all over the world to..um…conquer it. And who does that sound like? (hint: you mentioned it only a thousand times in your thesis).

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu said never to trap your enemy, surrounded and with no way out. He will fight with the strength of desperation, making a last stand and inflicting grueling casualties. Always leave the appearance of one way open, and you can continue to chase, harass, and engage as your enemy is moved along that path.

If we start on conquest, we pretty much have to finish it, or else enemies will appear from nowhere, alarmed at our actions & attacking in “self-defense”. So you are talking genocide in the long run. And genocide is a tough sell.
Because Americans, God bless ‘em, are given to compassion.
We are a Christian nation, and forgiveness is woven right into our souls. Genocide is a necessity, compassion is a luxury. You’re eventually going to try to pit our basic survival instinct against our higher ideals. One protects the body, but the other nourishes the soul. Who can look into the mirror and say, “we survived- but what did we have to do to accomplish that?” The Jihadi have no trouble with this. Their strength doesn’t lie in compassion. That’s why THEY”RE THE BAD GUYS. And it’s why they’re going to lose.

We’re trying to set up democracy in Iraq. Eventually everywhere, but right now, Iraq. And we aren’t going to get customers at the democracy shop if we’re no better than the Jihadi we’re fighting. But to wipe them out, we’d have to be.

The peace-nik protesting hippie scum you’re down on right now? That’s freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. It’s part of the democracy package upgrade we’re trying to install in Iraq.

And you know what? It’s good for us. Seriously. Follow:
By showing Iraq that not everyone in America agrees, but everyone STILL HAS A VOICE, we’re showing how much better we are than Saddam. Don’t like the war? Think 2000+ in American blood is too high a price? In America- YOU CAN SAY THAT. In Saddam’s Iraq, it was the anonymous grave or Abu-Ghraib. We’re better. America rocks.

I personally always thought that our big win in Iraq wasn’t going to be in amassing a huge kill-list of bad guys. What’s going to change Iraq is them seeing our women in uniform, serving in the military along with the men.
In America- we treat our women as EQUALS, not as property. Pretty cool, huh? And of course, the Iraqi men might not think so. But the Iraqi women just might. The win here isn’t the body count. It’s the spread of ideas. It’s them getting to see real Americans close up (and trying to kill them) and seeing them as PEOPLE, not as a faceless enemy stitched together by rumors and propaganda.
Our compassion. Our freedoms. Our sense of humor. Pants on women. These are our strengths.

You know what won’t win this for us? Pessimism.
You have given the BEST WRITTEN essay against optimism I have read in a long time. Everything you said was unmistakably true. There are people who want us dead.
People I’ve never met want me dead. Just for being American. Just for being a woman who doesn’t cover her hair or avert her gaze or whatever the heck I’m supposed to do.

That’s a pretty good case for pessimism.
It’s a solid argument for “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” strategy (shorthand- Genocide).
It’s a check in the box marked “paranoia”. Definitely.

There’s a different way. Optimism. Compassion. Sharing, caring, peaceful tree-hugging hippie crap.

So, which do we go with? Well, both.
The BEST THING about America, is even though no one here can agree with anyone else here, WE DON’T HAVE TO to get along, to function as a country. We have enough people- AND enough freedom- that some can go do the pessimism thing and kill bad guys, and some can go do the optimism thing and try to spread ideas and ideals and promote understanding, and some can stay at home on their safe couches and debate who’s “right” on the internet.

We’re BOTH right. And we have to try it both ways. Because as you pointed out, the pivotal moments are dicey things.
And not all of them make the papers. Sometimes the most pivotal moments take place in a person’s mind or a change of heart. So, where do you want to aim? And what ammo do you use? I know which way I’m going.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you clearly have no care for atrocities that are much greater than those you cry about…

And let us not forget about the God only knows how many have died in China… the government Bush is very friendly with…