[Sethomas]

I never said that the 91 Iraq invasion wasn't merited, hence my specifying destruction of roads after that war. I don't know if "post bello" is a popular term anymore, probably not so much as antebellum but whatever. What I was saying, though, was that Iraq was dealt with poorly through the Clinton years, and Bush's idea of correcting that with nothing but war was brash for the publicized ends. I specify that last clause because I don't think that the war has anything to do about helping the Iraqi people. I'm not so naive as to call it a blood for oil exchange, but the sheer logistics of dealing with Hussein meant that you can get rid of him or you can win the hearts and minds of the people, but to do both in one fell swoop is unrealistic. If it was pertinent to deal with every humanitarian crisis related to dictatorships, you can't pretend like Hussein was at the top of the list.

To answer your question about why this isn't a liberal war, I'd have to say that it's in practice neither liberal nor conservative. It's just imbecility. Were it that the utilitarian equation of lives saved versus lives lost favored the humanitarian side, then I think there'd be a worthy imperative for liberals to take up that flag. But, no. I think that by 2003 Hussein was more than sufficiently castrated, and the invasion cost far more lives than it saved.

So, the question is whether or not a total sterilization of the Middle East, the real motive behind the war, is ethical or manageable. The answer is, of course, no to both. You can't ameliorate a situation contrary to the will of those you're "helping" without making them hate you, and the attempt thereof is sure to bankrupt anyone who tries. I mean, it'd be lovely if Uncle Sam helped those who help themselves, but raping a country and calling it a favor is not how that's done.

But really, if cellphone companies are making a killing there, it's worth it. Right?