NOW I'LL APOLOGIZE: As usual my pal Bart makes a lot of sense (below) and reminds me that "Raze Fallujah" is diametrically opposed to why I originally thought this war was a good idea. The combination of an oppressed people and a horrible despot harboring WMD seemed to me to create a defensible case for military action. But as Bart argues below, there's the problem of no WMD and a less-than-"grateful" band of "liberated" Iraqis who are overwhelming their supposed liberators. Once again I'll give Bart the floor:

"Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)" George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union

Scott- I have to admit, I'm horribly disappointed. Damnit, this is what a hell of a lot of us were arguing 15 months ago - there was never a question that the US army would roll over what was left of the Iraqi army. The questions instead were related to what was to me a hell of a lot more important: will this war actually make the United States (and its allies) safer? Is there a plan to actually accomplish the goals we set forth prior to invasion , absent the roses in the street welcoming party that was promised? Given the complexity and flexibility of the terrorist groups we are fighting, is the lack of international cooperation that is sure to follow this invasion worth the potential security of removing a despot? In retrospect it seems quite clear that the answer to all three question was no. The pro-invasion chorus was consistently "things will work out fine - are you willing to suffer another 9/11?" Well, damnit, now the chickens are home to roost and the pro-war voices have moved pretty quickly from "we need to take him out to protect our country" to "did you see the mass graves? Are you pro-Saddam?" to "the motherfuckers don't appreciate what we're giving 'em -fuck em all let's raze the city and get the hell out." I hope you don't mind me pointing out the incredible hypocrisy of this argument. If we fought this war to make our country safer I can't think of a more effective way of recruiting poeple to blow themselves up in our bases, buildings and homes than dropping a Dresden on an Islam holy city where, right or wrong, the whole uprising started after our shutting down of a freely published newspaper. All the humanitarian justifications I heard seem to have droppen by the wayside as well (Over 600 dead Iraqi's in the last week - I know Saddam was bad but I doubt that families were losing 600 a week in only one city).

I'm not trying to defend the inhuman and despicable acts that have happened over the past week. All I'm doing is pointing out that is a war that we chose to enter - there was no imminent threat to our national security, there was no connection to Al-Quaeda (although it sure as hell is there now, along with every other chicken shit terrorist organization signing up every orphaned son who last their father to a US bomb). We built this shithole because a fucked-up administration felt that God had touched them to lead the world to their vision of heaven and like a lot of people who are convinced that they have the one and only true answer they found themselves swimming in a world of shit. Power carries reponsibility and razing towns and pulling out of a country we helped arm and then destroy promises nothing but more and more death for both countries. I screamed against this damn war, not because it was wrong but because we went about it all wrong. The costs are only going to grow higher, I'm afraid, but the costs of leaving will be even greater. GWB started a fire certain that he could contain it and his error in judgment could very well cost us all far more than we ever thought.