Trying to sound erudite



Why is it that everyone has to proclaim so observation that is so unique, so insightful, that they alone possess the wisdom of the ages? And why is it that they feel free to exclude so much when their argument contains so little?



Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs mag tries out is hand to in Get Real, a psuedo-analytical look at the return to realism in our foreign affairs.

SEVEN months into George W. Bush's second term, it is clear that whatever his expansive second Inaugural Address may have promised, American foreign policy has taken a decidedly pragmatic turn. In practice, the Bush administration has recently begun to pursue interests rather than ideals and conciliation rather than confrontation.

First-term foreign policy hardliners like John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith have moved to jobs outside of Washington or left the administration entirely. The State Department has regained the ear of the White House and won support for repairing relations with Europe and negotiating with Iran and North Korea. And the Pentagon, overextended and trapped in a grueling counterinsurgency, has taken to rehashing Kerry campaign rhetoric about the limited utility of military force, lowered its expectations in Iraq and sent up trial balloons about withdrawal. The only people not to have gotten the memorandum, it seems, are the president and vice president, who feebly insist that the "war on terror" remains a useful concept and that everything in Iraq is going just fine.

First, it rests on the premise that Iraq has already failed. Never in the course of warfare has defeat been called so early, by so many, so often.



The vast majority of Iraq is stable, economically and politcally. The Iraqi forces are steadily growing, they're more capable, and they're engaging the enemy more successfully. Anthony Cordesman, highly critical of the war has offered a positive assessment. Listen and read what the terrorists say. Zarkawi is furious he's failing and is openly in disagreement with bin Laden, they've openly turned their efforts outwards towards Europe, sectarian civil war hasn't happened, the political process has proceeded, and shock waves are spreading throughout the middle east.



We're on the offensive, taking the fight to the enemy, and closing off his rat lines. Hot spots like Mosul and Sadr city are now much more peaceful and life there improving.



It's May 1945, the battle in the Philippines is still raging, Okinawa is an ongoing bloodbath, and the B29's are pounding Tokyo, to little perceived effect. Iwo just concluded, at horrific cost, and the fighting is getting even harder, not easier. Wave after wave of kamikaze pound our ships. Naha, Shuri, the Punchbowl, dens of death. Japapn is more resilient, the costs getting immensely steeper.



At Tarawa, Pelilieu, and the Marianas, we measured casualties in the thousands. Now, we measure them in the tens of thousands.



In short, we're losing. Time for a settlement. Time to cut our losses, accept a "realistic" solution.



And that's exactly what happened.



How sad and foolish, ghoulish really, to take sides, to maneuver, to place personal bets on the outcome. Whosoever will have been proven "right" will attain that exalted status they seek.



Sad game it is, the folly of the elite. Living in their glass houses should give them quite a view. Perhaps there's just too much glare.

Funny thing, sometimes the post office catches letters with odd return addresses. And when yours is:

1 Hidden Cave Dr.
Mountain Hideout, Afghanistan/pakistan border

even the most clueless civil servant might notice something odd. Turns out, Mrs. Sheehan was sent a letter from someone hiding in a cave somewhere in the mountains. Who'd have thought. See, it turns out he heard that Crawford Protest Spurs Vigils Nationwide, and he just had to write:



Dear Cin,

Heard you're going great guns with this protest thing. We didn't have too much of it when my friends ran things in Afghanistan a few years ago, but hey, what can I say. It was such a wonderful place, why protest.

Looks like you're really helping end Bush's neocon war of agression. And that Israel comment, beautiful, just beautiful. I gotta tell you, it's been hard being on the run the last few years, but I get encouraged everytime I read about you.

Thanks for all the help. I really thought Iraq was lost, what with the elections and all. Even my guy, what's his name, Zark something or other, is all whining about how he needs more money, Iraqis not being scared, needs to go elsewhere. What a waste. Bad terrorist, no virgins for him.

But you, you, you came along just in time. What can I say. You have a saying I hear, "for all you do, this Bud's for you". Well, you know I can't drink, but I can kill the infidel. Ha ha, just a joke. You know.

Keep up the great work, can't tell you how much it helps.

Love,

Osama

p.s. no need to reply. If you can find me, well, you know...

I'm looking at my TTLB Ecosystem rank (okay, I'm a little vain!!) and I notice a blog called "LEFT is RIGHT, Blogging against the Bush War". No, not going to give a link. Not worth your time, unless you prefer the same leftist conspiracy theory drivel, the same recitations of mindless arguments, the ad infinitum inuenedo. Can't they be original at all? Someone please help them. Like Stuart Smalley, they need new material.

What occurred to me was this: what if it was "FDR's war"? After all, he promised to keep us out of war, yet did everything in his power to get us into Europe. Even after we were attacked by Japan, we still put Europe first.

Clearly Germany was FDR's war. At least, what if it was protrayed that way?

The longer the war goes on, the more clearly the left exposes itself. For all their supposed ability to think, they are the most mind-numbed, easily led and manipulated bunch of people. They are followers of the cult of the left, adherents to a faith which permits no dissent, haters of all non-believers.

It is no longer possible, if it ever was really, to hold even somewhat meaningful discussions or debates with these people. I don't know which is more pathetic, their complete ignorance and lack of understanding, or their ignorance of their ignorance.

After ten years of teaching, I finally get to teach economics. Back when I was in school for my teaching credential, I figured that with econ a state graduation requirement, having an degree in econ would be great. Then I got introduced to the reality of public education.

See, econ falls under the mantle of "social studies" (somebody deserved to die for that term!!), and so, anyone with a Social Studies credential can teach it. Now, consider this: econ is a senior class, that they must pass to graduate. In other words, you're teaching the most mature students, in a class that's an absolute must-pass class. You got 'em by the, um, nevermind.

As I was to learn, those jobs almost always go to the most tenured teachers, etc. Fortunately, my principal really tries to put the most qualified teachers in the classes. Thus, my BA in Econ finally paid off. Anyways, it is sheer joy to teach the kids to think like an economist.

For example, we were learning about scarcity and the need for trade-offs. Maybe congress should pop in some time!! So, we did a simple exercise where the students figured out what they would and could pay for certain items. Then they wrote about why they would purchase the items, and then how they could purchase them.

Here's the upshot. They purcahse the items because a) they need or want them b) they don't have them and c) the items are scarce(limited). They would purchase them by working, which means they are a) trading their time, labor, and effort for money and b) trading their money for the item. More simply, they are trading their time, labor, and effort for an item. Money simply makes it easier. The "value" or cost is represented by what they are willing to give up for what they get.

On the very first day of school they learned that they want to be in my class more than they want to not be there. Why? Because they are able to leave, in that I'm not going to tackle them, nor are the campus security going to either if they try to leave. However...the 'cost" of not being in class is greater than they are willing to pay, be it grounding, etc. Thus, class is "cheaper".

Their freedom, quite simply, is not worth it. And as the old saying goes, freedom isn't free. And now 150 seniors know it as well.

And now they know exactly what things cost. Even if someone gives them the money, they are still giving up something: what they could have bought instead. The money is scarce. And 150 seniors know that as well too.

Thinking like an economist. I'll keep more coming.

I feel like I'm in a Billy Joel song...

Actually, a reader has asked for my thoughts on this article. So here goes:

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

Ever see the Far Side cartoon where he has two pictures, one, "What we say to dogs", the other, "What they hear"? The upshot is that most of it is all noise.

And so is this article. Read Chrenkoff to get a much better picture of Iraq. Is it perfect? Hardly. But, there has been so much progress, so much improvement. Just the other day, the IMF said the outlook for Iraq's economy was positive.

Just keep in mind, that since 2000, the left aided fully by the MSM has done everythign to deligitamize the Bush election, the administration, and everything they have done. And that includes, specifically, the war. And by the war, I mean the entire war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, the work with the Saudis, Pakistanis, Jordanians, et al., to help close bank accounts, arrest terrorists, and destroy their networks.

Even Bush's 2004 victory hasn't dampened their efforts, but rather, caused them to be redoubled. Case in point: the Rove-Plame non-story. Never has so much been written about so little. Never has a group, the press, been more obsequious to someone so gross a prevaricator, the "everything he said ain't so" Joe Wilson.

Remember all the proclamations the press has made, from "it'll be easy" to "we'll be greeted with open arms", etc. Well, for one, Bush never said it'd be easy, that's a straw man they constructed. In point of fact, he said, and has reiterated many times exactly the opposite. Two, we were greeted rather warmly by most of the country, just ask Hitchens who was there. That is something they haven't covered, nor will they ever.

As for the article, it cites unamed US officials, a former CIA Iraq analysist, and Larry Diamand, who was opposed to the war from the outset. So we have anonymous sources, whose worth we've seen lately are somewhat, how shall we say, dubious. Next we have a CIA Iraq analyst. Well, they sure got everything right about Iraq, didn't they? And lastly, someone opposed to the operation, who I'm sure will be completely fair.

Why don't the authors just seek economic forecasts from Paul Krugman?

Here's the most egregious part of the article:

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

There's a word for that. Bulls**t. We know how State has felt about the middle east for decades. It's why Condi is there now. State was a revolving door for diplomats to get rich lobbying for Arab shiekdoms. The guy is lying so badly that he belongs writing for the NY Times.

There's another term I think that fits this article, white noise. It's just a background distraction that makes it more difficult to work.

I'd worry far more about this:"If I Got My News From the Newspapers I'd be Pretty Depressed As Well".

Last post I wrote at length about why we're at war. It wasn't nor could it possibly be simplified into a sound bite or a nice, concise talking point. So, I began to think...

Let's take a look at the alternative.

Only inappropriate words can describe the feelings I have for the lunatic left, epitomized in Frank Rich and his latest drivel, a mish-mosh of leftist stupidity. His glee seeps through almost transparently. When you ask how can I say the left hates America, he's example number one. I keep having these visions of his head being severed from his body while he pleads his case in futility.

Now, let's assume for a moment we actually "lose" Iraq. Let's assume that we waged the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for all the right reasons, but we failed to seek final victory. Let's assume that the jihadists win.

Fine. Iraq devolves into civil war, and what results is anyone's guess. A jihadist state? Most likely not. A Shia theocracy? Probably, but somewhat less than Iran. Terrorists? In parts I'd imagine, but certainly the Kurds would not be willing to give up their autonomy.

But what about the thousands and thousands of courageous Iraqis who are serving in the police and military? What about the millions who went to the polls? What about all the town councils, mayors, local governments, and people who had the taste of freedom? No, that won't die. They'll never trust us, but they'll never go back.

The greatest casualty will be US credibility. How long a battle it took to restore it, after Vietnam and Carter. Alas, perhaps 9/11 wasn't really enough. Now, what I write here is a) purely speculative and b) the absolute worst case scenario. In neither case do I hope for, even in the slightest manner, the following.

Let's assume that five, maybe ten years from now, some terrorist gets ahold of a nuclear device and it detonates in a major US metropolitan center. Chances are it'll be New York, as for some reason, it is the terrorists favorite target.

We can probably be certain of a few things. One, it will be a singular event. We're not going to face 10,000 missiles or a fleet of bombers. Two, it will probably be a small yield device. Portability and simplicity will be key. It'll have to be small enough to be carried on the back, and it'll have to simple enough that the person carrying it can arm and detonate it.

Okay, how many people will die? One hundred thousand, half a million maybe. We have 300 million Americans, most of whom will be relatively safe. Our industrial heartland, our agricultural centers, our communications systems will remain intact. We'll be shocked, stunned, mortified, but not destroyed. In fact, let's face it, they can do many things to us, but they can't invade and conquer us.

The very worst thing that can happen to us will casue anger and outrage probably not seen in 60 years, or maybe even ever. Those fence sitters will certainly fall, most of those with any inhibitions will throw them to the wind.

I do know this, the restraint and "tolerance" that we have applied in gregarious fashion will be gone. Internment? That'll look like a siesta. We are at war precisely so the preceding doesn't happen. What we fear most is exactly such an attack, not the aftermath.

But assume for a moment such an event occurs.

We will do what we have not done, which is to unleash the full economic and industrial might of the US. We need to be once again the "arsenal of democracy".

Just today in class, we were discussing production possibilities, i.e. trade-offs economies must make. I used a WW2 example of guns vs. tanks. We slowed our building of tanks to kill tanks and turned to planes instead. Why? Because we could build enough planes to blacken the skies and it was far more effective to bomb the German factories and oil refineries with B17's then have a P47 shoot the tanks in France.

Now, we built plenty of tanks as well. We also built plenty ships, enough to cover the seas. Each day our factories churned out bullets by the millions and artillery shells by the thousands, tons and tons of supplies, enough to supply our army, the Brits, the Soviets, and half the free world. Hans von Luck remarked in his memoirs, with great astonishment, how the US would expend thousands of artillery shells before assaulting even a small position.

We did so because we brought to bear the full weight of the most powerful economic force the world had ever seen fueling the greatest war machine the world would ever see. Trade offs? Yes, we had them. Cars on blocks for lack of tires, sugar rationing, etc. But when it came to fighting the war, none.

So, on the other hand, maybe the left is right, that Iraq is lost. Fine. So we lose. We have an interregnum. Then we'll be attacked again. Tragedy, sorrow, pain, grief. Anger, rage, fury. Then...

we begin to really fight the war.

Cindy Sheehan is apparently looking for answers as to why her son died in Iraq. While nobody can bring her son back, and nobody can ease her pain, the shameless exploitation and manipulation of this poor woman by the cadre on the left is exacerbating the same pain and grief of every other family who has lost loved ones in Iraq.

But first, this is an ideal time to put in a plug for education, which, as most of my readers know, is my profession. An education provides a brick wall if you will, with which to deflect the numerous bouncing balls of lunacy and extremism that are hurled at you. Otherwise, we become a swiss cheese amalgam of thoughts and feelings, full of holes wide enough to allow the myriad of deciet to penetrate.

Too often an education is promoted as being necessary for success. In truth it isn't. Plenty of college graduates are flipping burgers while many with far less education are making good livings. In fact, we are paid for our skills, i.e. what we are able to do, far more than for what we know. In fact, the very concept of education is disinct from training. So what then is the true purpose of an education?

Democracies are by their very nature moderate forms of government. They are the middle ground between the totalitarianism of autocracy and anarchy, the rule of one or the rule of none. Democracy has been attacked by everyone from Plato to Nietzsche, to the very terrorists we face today. It requires us to forgo our whims, Rousseau's "state of nature", and subsume them to the society at large and the duly elected government. We trade our complete autonomy for something much greater. We enter into Locke's social contract, where our natural rights, life liberty, and property, are protected.

But to do this, we must first be willing to do so, to accept that we cannot "do whatever we want, whenever we want, with whomever we want" as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. For in reality, my actions, however "private" they might seem, do affect others. And likewise, others' actions however "private" they might be, do affect me. We come together willingly to live in peace with one another, to ascribe to a set of laws we mutually agree upon. Tacit in that agreement is that we abide by those we dislike and disagree with, provided they were passed in a lawful and legitimate manner.

When a government arrives at a conclusion, after convening and debating and voting, if that policy is completely within the confines of law, it is therefore both just and legal. It can be changed according to legal prescriptions, yet when the legislators and executives that carry out such policies have done so in such manner, it is therefore even more just and legal. So it is in Iraq, where for months the policy was debated ad infinitum, voted on by, and confirmed in a the last prediential election.

Perhaps that is why the effort to undermine the validity of the results, from Ohio to Florida. In fact, that is the sole reason why.

So for reason number one Cindy, the reason we're in Iraq is that it was a policy determined in democratic fashion. Like Socrates, himself the "victim", if you will, of two dubious campaigns far away from home (Amphipolis and Potidea), he too understood that the policy he disapproved of was still ultimtaely legtiimate. He accepted his fate and his circumstance, as part of living in a democratic polis.

Politicians from both parties, acing on the best interest of the country, on the best intelligence available, and with the sincerest of intentions, voted to go to war. So for no other reason, though many do exist, we're in Iraq because at the time, the vast majority of Americans, as evidenced in their duly elected officials, decided that was the proper course of action.

Now, if one argues that the war was sold based on lies, that the public was hoodwinked, and the plethora of other conspiracies that the left propagates, than isn't that an even better arguement for an "education"? Or is it just that those who opposed the war fear democracy more than dictatorship?

If however, we the people, feel that the policy should be changed then we will act through our legislators to do so. Perhaps one feels that we shouldn't debate policy? Nothing could be further from the truth. Open discussion is the hallmark of free socieities, and one need only read Thucydides' account of the Sicilan debate to see this. However, making a spectacle of oneself, using propaganda and invective to alter a course of action is neither prudent nor democratic. And is is most often contrary to the wishes of the "silent majority" of the electorate. See the previous paragraph if you're unsure about democracy.

Now, what other reasons did we have for going into Iraq? Well, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, make good use of google to verify the numberous points I'll cover.

At the risk again of sounding presumptuous, the world changed on 9/11. No, there was no magical transformation, as if the gods themselves descended upon the earth to play with the mortals. In fact, the world had long since chagned, we were only too blind, hopeful, ignorant maybe, to acknowledge it. In fact, 9/11 will one day be seen not as a unique act out of the blue, but rather as the culmination of years of neglect to the cancerous tumor of four decades of failed policies. It should really not be seen as the watershed event many perceive it to be, but rather as a none-too-subtle wake up call, the drill sergeant yelling at us in 0400, the blaring alarm clock calling us out of the slumber we fell into.

We were at war far before 9/11. Some might say it was 1991 and the first gulf war, some might say it was 1979 and the Iranian hostage crisis, some, myself included, might say it started in 1973 with the first oil embargo. Some might even argue it goes much farther back, maybe to the failed Ottoman empire, the partition of the middle east, the reconquista, maybe even the crusades. Who can say for sure, yet one thing is certain, they have been at war with us for far longer than we with them. This much is true.

And what has all that shown? Simply an unwillingness on the part of us (the west) to reach a final confrontation and seek final conclusion to the battle. We percieve it as evidence of our modernity, our tolerance, and our sophistication. They see it only as weakness, failure of faith in our system, a reluctance to fight. Ask the Poles what happens when the latter party perceives the former in such a state.

So that is reason two Cindy. We fight them now because we haven't fought them previously. We engaged them, challenged them, threw out a punk card (just to keep it current) but we never stepped up, showed anything other than our hubris and contempt: hubris that we were above them, contempt that they were beneath us.

So, post-9/11, the president and the entire free world was presented with a problem, the realization that the Sword of Damocles hanging above us has fallen. The problem is not ours alone, as Blair, Howard. Berlusconi, Aznar, the elected leaders in India, Japan, Korea are equally in danger. The leaders in Qatar, Bahrain, and other Gulf States now understand the Faustian deal is a bargain no more.

We also found allies in the former Soviet satellite states, Poland, Czech Republic, Albania among others, for they knew all too well what true oppression is and who the great redeemer and liberator was. They feared the Soviet boot, not the California cowboy who proposed that most glorious of maxims, "We win, they lose." The papmered left in the west was insulated and secure to hate the one man who guaranteed their freedom to be so divisive and so petulant.

Today, we haven't such luxury. So Cindy, reason number three is simply this: in the Soviets we had an enemy that was evil but rational and predictable. They possessed, but did not use their armageddon arsenal. We think, actually we know, the enemy we face is not one who any reservations.

We could afford to play a waiting game, Dulles' containment, fight communist insurrections abroad, the cat and mouse game, for no matter how we perceived the enemy, they would never come to our shores. We have discovered all too sadly this is no longer the case. They not only will, but have, and most likely still are coming to our shores.

Thus we must fight this hydra, the evil multi-headed beast. We can kill one head, even two, and yet more can surely bite and kill. The Taliban was one of those heads, Saddam another. Note the word, another. Not the other, and defiitely not the last.

How long will we fight, when will we return to normalcy? On my father's wall, hanging next to his honorable discharge is an award for meritorious service in defense of freedom during the cold war. He was discharged from the Navy in 1960, and he, like millions of other Americans played a very small, yet very vital role in keeping us free.

Hundreds of years from now, history texts will write of this "Cold War" and students will ponder it's causes and effects. Today we read Thucydides, Caesar, Livy, and Plutarch, Gibbons, Creasy, et al. When we become ancient, what will the students read? Or will they read at all, will they be able to read at all?

My father could not know that almost four decades after he joined that epic struggle would he receive recognition for, and share in the glory of, victory. So too can you, your fellow grieving families, and the hundreds of thousands who are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere in between not know when you will receive your just recognition for final victory. I do hope you're alive then, so that your son's bravery and sacrifice can stand in the pantheons of those who stood for freedom, from Marathon to Bunker Hill, from Normandy to Baghdad.

In other words, asking for answers now is analogous to asking FDR why your son died on Guadalcanal, Kasserine, Sicily, or over St. Nazaire. What could Lincoln have said to the grieving after Shiloh, Antietam, or even Gettysburg? So, grieving mother, patience is something we only have when our sufferings have been prolonged, our pain deep. Mohammed at Iraq the Model knows such, and he has written you an explanation.

Thus reason number four is that currently, answers are few. What if Washington had thrown in the towel, the troops went home after Brooklyn or Fort Washington? He led an army fighting for a "nation" whose vast majority was at worst antagonistic, at best ambivalent. Providence indeed guided him, of that much I am certain. I write this as living testament to this.

So much for the ethereal. That will be the domain of the lecture hall theorists, the intellectual elite we often wonder have ever bought their own groceries or washed their own car. No, the reasons extend far beyond the dissertations and the diatribe. A brillinat man once said, "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Saddam was a major benefactor of terrorism. His ties included everyone from Palestinian suicide bombers, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to yes, al Qaeda.

Saddam had longstanding and detailed ties to al Qaeda. They, or their affiliates, trained in Iraq. He sent scientists to Sudan to train them. He offered them safe harbor and/or asylum.

Saddam had longstanding weapons programs, including nuclear, biological and chemical. He was also thought to be in possession of stockpiles of weapons, and developing bigger and better weapons. This was the conclusion of not just President Bush, but the UN, French, German, British, Israeli, Russian, Pakistani, Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, and every other intelligence service. Oh, and there was one more, the Clinton administration. Go back and read his speeches.

Saddam invaded his neighbors, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (Kurd, Shia, and even Sunni), and was feared by every gulf state. He used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. He fired scuds at Israel. He committed acts of brutality and horror against his own people, torture, rape, mass executions. So grotesque his crimes, so pervasive his rule that even in prison, Iraqis are unsure he's gone forever.

Saddam posed a very real, very dangerous, and very scary enemy. And make no doubt about it either, he was an enemy. Yes, there are plenty of people still ruling that arrest, torture and kill. Yes, there are regimes that practice genocide. But do we need to go after them all? No.

For all that we knew, all that we could know, few in the world had the weapons, the terrorist connections, and the will to put the two together. And so, that Cindy is reason number five through one million.

Let's look at it another way.

There is sadly the unasked question in all this, so simple, so revealing, yet so insightful. "If everyone thought he had WMD's and he admitted as late as 1998 he had them, then where are they?" Ask yourself that question, and ask yourself why isn't anyone of any importance asking it as well.

Could we be certain he was weapon free? Do we really want to take a chance? Most rational people clearly know the answer to those. Do you?

In the 1960's and 1970's, Central America was an unfortunate playground in the cold war. Yes, both right and left wing death squads, as if which side the bullet comes from matters, wreaked havoc on Guatamalen, Salvadoran, Costa Rican equally. Yet, for all their misery, and surely it was misery, how many strapped bombs to themselves and killed innocent westerners, how many would ever plan to fly airplanes into buildings? The answer is simple: none.

In 1945, the mantra "Never Again" was a goal of the UN. Never again will millions be killed, except an asterisk is necessary, for if you're African, and the killer an African thug despot, then, well, it's up for discussion. Yet how many Rwandans, Burundians, Congonese, Sierra Leonians, and many others are setting off car bombs on busy urban street corners? Simple answer again: none.

It is not possible to address every heinous act of every brutal dictator, for most pose no threat to the world. When we are ready, in due time, sadly too late I agree, they'll be dealt with. But for the time being, for all his bluster and bombast, Hugo Chavez isn't secretly working on nuclear weapons.

And that brings us back to Saddam. Forget the vile propaganda filmmaker who can take poetic license with the truth, who take leave of reality, for a few greenbacks. Forget the shrill California Senator who's out fundraising, or the senile Massachusetts senator who's lost too many brain cells to have enough sense to pour piss ot of a boot, who knows he got cheated in the DNA pool by his three older brothers. Forget for a moment the press who loves you because you make good copy, good pictures, and good ammunition agaisnt a president they despise. Forget for a moment all the rich, spoiled, self-righteous fools who are funded by a billionaire foreigner, as well as his website.

Forget for a moment all that and just consider this.

We didn't "go to war" with Saddam, we finished the war which started, at least with him, in 1991. But it goes much further than that.

We are at war today, becasue we've been at war for a long, long time. You pick the date, but it really doesn't matter because. We're at war not of our own choosing. We're at war because we were attacked, and along with many other free societies, those who have been attacked or targeted, we'll stand together or die alone.

I know this is not the simple and clear explanation you've wanted. Sadly, if it could be condensed onto a bumper sticker, then it'd be fodder for the left. No, it requires a deeper understanding, a more time and thought consuming process. But to a grieving mother, none of that matters.

Let's conclude with what we do know. We have been at war with a vile pathology, manifest in the jihadist, supported by the petrodollar-fed dictator for many many years. Our policies of containment and limited engagement might have worked with the Soviets, but this is an entirely new and irrational enemy. We have given the enemy every reason to believe we are weak and easily defeated, which has caused him to act. We have not sought final confrontation, an end game to the conflict and that has strengthened and emboldened him, while demoralizing us. We can put men on the moon and map the genome, but can't cure the common cold or defeat terrorism. Surely it's unsurmountable.

Saddam was a grave threat to entire middle east, the agent provacateur of the region. If the Palestinian cause was the cause of terrorism, then he was the burr under the saddle, the peace process upended by another bomb rewarded by another Saddam check. But we know that is hardly the case. If Bush has been, shall we say, flexible, on reasons for war, than the terrorist leaders qualify as Olympic gymnasts. They have more reasons than a 3rd grader missing his homework, and all equally as bad.

There is no queastion that Saddam had a burning desire to possess, procure, develop, and eventually use any and all weapons in his arsenal. This would not only include, but specifically be chemical, biological, and nuclear. This much, all but the most extreme anti-war people agree upon.

Saddam was a sworn enemy of the United States, an ally of those who felt similarly. That group would include all those who long for a return to, if ever such really existed, the glory of the caliphate. They yearn however for much more as well. They seek, and will never cease their quest for, the day when their extreme brand of religion governs all men, not just their country. This I assure you is far far worse than anything MoveOn.org could conjure up that the Bush administration is attempting.

As I acknowledged earlier Cindy, nothing can ease your pain. However, understand that your son died, as 1800 others have, as 58,000 did in Vietnam, as 400,000 did against Germany and Japan, as 100,000 did in WW1, as 500,000 did in the Civil War, and as those brave souls who languished in the frozen Valley Forge did before we were even a "country". He died so that you might protest outside the president's ranch, I might blog about it, and hopefully, a few people on the internet might actually read it.

We haven't any more chances to make the same errors and mistakes, or to pursue the same failed policies that led us here. Yes, 9/11 did change all that. For us. Not for them. And now, finally, we are not dancing on the periphery, we are marching into the belly of the beast.

Small consolation this will be, but one hundred years from now, they will build a monument to the soldiers who perished in the War on Terror. Please know this, when school children visit that memorial, they will read your son's name. I know your son died in Iraq. As long as we are free, he will live forever.

God Bless you, your son, and all those that share the same awful circumstance. You and he have our enduring gratitude. Please don't disparage that, or the service and sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands that are still risking everything while asking for nothing.

We fight there for many reasons. Most of all, we fight there because hopefully we'll never fight here.