Continued. . .

So here's where my personal opinion really comes in.

There are some obvious, although unspoken benefits to be realized by the US in Iraq. Not least of them, the establishment of a friendly regime in such a key country will open the way for oil exploitation on a scale unlike we have probably seen in ages. Not only will we have virtually unhindered access to the Iraqi oil reserves (under the guise of letting Iraq finance their reconstruction with oil dollars... dollars coming from whom?), we will have acquired a primary link to a transcontinental pipeline. In addition to friendly regimes in Afghanistan, this means unhindered oil from Russia straight to the Persian Gulf.

The fact that this benefit stays so deeply buried under the rhetoric of war has bothered me throughout. As I said earlier, I believe a war in defense of our economy can be justified. However, one should question whether this benefit will be generalized to the entire country as a long-term boon, or are we actually looking at a benefit to a much smaller set of corporations? I'm afraid the cynic in me indicates the latter. If there were great benefits to be realized by our country, then I cannot believe they would not have been exploited in the propaganda war.

Another benefit, if one buys into the argument that we are there to free the Iraqi people and remove a dictator from power, is that we are seeing the first stages of success. The Iraqis certainly seem pretty happy as they loot and dance in the streets. There can be no question that removing the Hussein Regime was a good thing for them. It was probably good for the world as well, from a kharmic perspective if nothing else. He was a bad man. He did very bad things. Nobody could ever argue against that.

Even so, there are obvious problems to the approach of invading a sovereign country (even under the guise of establishing "democracy"). This is imperialism, short and simple. It may be called "liberation", but euphemisms aside, the idea is to replace one regime with another of our own choosing and design. In any environment, this kind of manipulation chafes at the citizens. In the Muslim world, the intervention of a Christian government will be twice spurned. Unrest will soon follow, and violence is the only likely outcome as the effort begins to rid the country of the invaders.

The US does not have a very good record for setting up and maintaining self-sustaining "friendly" governments. After nearly being pushed completely out of Korea during the Korean war, the US set up a "democratic" government in South Korea. However, even 50 years later, we still have to provide troops and military strength to that country to maintain the border.

In Lebanon we helped overthrow a "dictator" and replaced him with a new "president". He was quickly assassinated and replaced by his brother, who soon abdicated and fled in exile to England. In the process, 241 Americans were killed in that country when a suicide bomber detonated a truck bomb outside their barracks. The Middle East is not a safe place for unwanted armies.

We have been "aiding" Colombia in its war with the FARC and the drug cartels for over 20 years. Despite billions of dollars spent, many lives lost, and extensive political manipulation, the country remains one of the most dangerous places on earth. Americans are warned against so much as travelling through the country's airports. Kidnapping and murder are daily occurrences, and political assassination is commonplace.

In Panama we moved Noriega into power, only to have to overthrow him with military force after his corruption made him a thorn in the American administration's side.

In Bosnia we "restored" a leader, only to see him assassinated as soon as our attention was turned to other conflicts. The list goes on, although most of our failures are pretty well obscured in the dusts of history.

Most recently, in Afghanistan, the US-supported leadership must be protected daily by American troops. The battle to drive terrorists out of Afghanistan still rages as Special Forces troops pursue practical ghosts through the mountains and hills of this rugged country.

So what makes the current administration think that they can possibly be successful in setting up a friendly regime in Iraq? The challenges seem obvious... the hatred of fundamentalist Muslims toward invading infidels, the factionalization of the different sects and tribes, a history of violence and retribution, blood feuds, and who knows what else.

I fear that, by taking us into this war, our Administration is plunging us into an inextricable morass in the Middle East. The war itself was nothing, when weighed against the likely long term fallout. There was never a question of military victory against the rag-tag remnants of the Iraqi Army. But securing the country and placating the Muslims will be a different story.

I can see Iraq as the "new Israel", as militants and terrorists strike against the occupation. Even if we pull the Americans out, I doubt that anyone will be under any illusions as to the puppet nature of the government we leave behind... and they will be subject to the same opposition and potential violence. Religious sects, tribes, and factionalized populations... all clamoring for revenge or their "share" of ancestral lands... the political landscape of Iraq is chaos.

No occupying force was ever able to tame it before, including Great Britain. What magical potion does the American presence believe they can use to salve the wounds and tempers? Is it possible that only a reign of inhumane terror and draconian law will do? If so, then it will require the replacement of one Saddam Hussein with another.

I also have grave doubts that our conquest of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is going to provide any new level of security to our country. It simply makes no sense to expect that, by taking violence into the heart of the Arab world, we will subdue their hatred and make them reconsider attacking us with terrorism.

This approach is certainly not working for Israel, where for every Israeli casualty, there are approximately 40 Palestinian casualties. Yet the Palestinians continue their attacks. Despite tanks, rockets, and aerial assaults, the Palestinians continue to kill and die for their cause. The lessons that should be learned here seem to be going unheeded as the US maintains an aggressive stance in the Mid-East, now threatening Syria for allegedly giving aid to Iraq.

The only bright side I can see to this line of thought is that Hussein was not highly respected or appreciated among the fundamentalist Muslim cadre. He was seen generally as a poseur and an infidel, hardly the makings of a martyr for the cause. But his country is still Muslim, and our presence there will amost certainly be resented.

As to the weapons of mass destruction argument...

I honestly believe that there is a real and frightening possibility that terrorists could acquire these weapons and use them against Americans on our home turf. I even believe that, given the right set of circumstances, Saddam Hussein may have been willing to sell such weapons to terrorist organizations. But of all the potential enemies our country has, Iraq was probably the least likely of them all to make such a deal, or to get away with it if they did.

But it behooves us to remember this, too. The weapons of choice for the terrorists have been decidedly low-tech. We're seeing bombs made of fertilizer and diesel fuel. There's an occasional load of plastique, wrapped in ball bearings or scrap metal. Even the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in spite of their ingenuity, utilized pretty basic ingredients... jet airliners. Now, how do we keep THOSE out of the hands of terrorists? Certainly not by bombing a country the size of California into the stone age.

The costs of this war are almost certain to outstrip the benefits. In the short term we are looking at a base price of over $80 billion! That doesn't even include the costs of reconstruction, the retention of a security force, or the likely long-term costs that will be incurred as we defend the new regime. History indicates that our presence will not be as short as some of the administration officials would like to claim. How much money, and how many lives will it take to maintain a presence in the region? Does anybody remember what happened in Beirut?

This point is probably the core of my argument against this war... that now it has been started, it will not be easy to end. I believe that as we crush one enemy in this region, another will rise. They will not be large enemies, easily subdued with bombs and artillery. They will look like everyone else in the crowd, impossible to distinguish until the opportunity to react is gone. These enemies will rise with great havoc, then disappear on the desert wind and melt into the background.

As the occupying army we will be forced to continue the expenditure of lives, equipment, and money just to maintain a foothold. Like any other empire, how long will it take before the costs exceed the profits and the enterprise must be abandoned? Has history taught us nothing?

Even more compelling, by choosing to push forward with this war in the face of global opposition, we may even have damaged our relations with potential allies. Instead of helping with the reconstruction, many are now considering the likelihood that they may be the next to face to point of the American sword. Some countries are already turning a new eye to their own defense... not against traditional enemies, but against the might of the United States!

President Bush's bold (but ill-considered) statement, "If you're not with us, you're against us," rang like a challenge and an ultimatum. It is now us against the world.

The act of declaring a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation will not soon be forgotten. It's a twist on big-stick diplomacy that I believe Roosevelt could never have imagined. It may establish a certain respect, but that respect will be based on fear. Any sign of weakness or inconsistency to this new position will surely invite challenge.

I fear, to the very depths of my soul, that the challenge will be answered soon. We will be feeding on the fruits of this war, sweet and bitter, long after the current administration has become just another paragraph in the history books. This is not the world I want to send our children into.

It didn't have to be this way.

Unfortunately, making arguments against a war that has already started seems pointless. In most ways, it probably is. But as logical voices are raised, and debate is joined, perhaps logic will begin to take root at the higher levels. Mistakes made today might be avoided in the future.