No disagreement, Henry. But I must point out that you yourself state "the sole task was the seizure of ONE person." Why, then, did Bush not focus on that one task, and become distracted by Hussein, and prematurely divide his military assets to prosecute a war in Iraq, which did not present an imminent threat?

Again, I have no issue or argument with our efforts in Afghanistan or with Al-Queda, except that by diverting attention to pursue his agenda in Iraq, Bush has failed to accomplish the primary objective of capturing Bin Laden and neutralizing Al-Queda. Al-Queda now has a cause and a rallying cry in Iraq, and will regain their strength and we will only have to do the same job again. How does that old saying go? "There's never enough time to do the job right the first time, but there's always time to do it over" ?


First, you're right, we're stuck in Iraq for the duration, no question. Removing Hussein was certainly a good thing. However, it could have waited. There are lots of other threats out there. We had the time, we had the advantage, and we could have applied other pressure and otherwise engaged and contained Iraq, while we finished the first job, and then gone back and handled Hussein.

If you think the "bulk" of Al-Queda, not to mention their brain trust and leadership, is all going into Iraq and taking up arms and dying in the streets there you are sadly mistaken. Iraq is now a rallying cry to recruit more Islamic terrorist soldiers, and yes, they are there fighting us. But many others are being trained and deployed elsewhere, witness Spain and Russia, and their leaders and brain trust are still at large and are still working their WMD agenda.

Their veteran element are NOT picking up AK47's and going in to Iraq to fight on the ground, they are recruiting new soldiers and hiding out, biding their time, planning their next 9/11. Never underestimate your opponent.

I disagree. The media is not to blame for our lack of morale. The way which Iraq has been handled by Bush from the beginning is to blame for that. He failed to make his case to the American people, and the results in Iraq speak for themselves.

The difference between Iraq and WWII is not the media, it's that our justification for being there was crystal clear, and undeniable. FDR did not jump into that conflict at the first whiff of a threat. Even after our allies were fully engaged and asked for our help, he was reluctant to commit troops.

Only after Pearl Harbor and after Germany declared war on us did FDR resort to military force. There was never a question as to our legitimate need to defend ourselves and defeat the axis powers attempt at global domination. No comparison can ever be made between WWII and our war on terrorism for a number of reasons, including something you stated in your first point: "This new enemy is shadow-like, and difficult to penetrate."

There was no gray area in WWII. There is far too much gray area, and not enough gray matter, involved in Bush's war in Iraq. The American people were not and are not convinced that this was absolutely necessary or that it has been gone about correctly, so we are not in full support of this war, hence, morale and public opinion suffers.

You are correct that this process takes years not months. I was never in favor of this war, and said right from the beginning everything I say now. I have never changed my opinion.

You are again correct about what it takes to restructure a country's political and physical infrastructure. It is better to take our time and do it correctly and ensure success. Which is precisely what we should have done before committing troops. Which is precisely what we should have done where Bin Laden and Al-Queda were concerned. Finish one job before you start another.

Which is precisely what Bush should have done before he launched this war in the first place, taken his time. Rush into a military conflict prematurely, without a post war recontruction plan, and you get a quagmire, and will not succeed.

BTW, by what criteria will we measure our success? Iraq is destined to become the next Israel. Civil and religious war, terrorism, and gross instability for decades to come. What if they want an Islamic Fundamenatlist leadership?

Will we consider our efforts a success if we get a regime there that is even more anti-American and supports terrorism as much or moreso than Hussein? How do we prevent that from happening if we are to allow them free elections and self determination? I fear we may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Protesting is our right, and our duty. It makes the government aware that we are dissatisfied, and that they must do better, and get results, and get us out of that mess.

I am equally proud to oppose the President. I am a Democrat, but if Kerry gets elected and fails as badly as Bush, or makes a similar mistake elsewhere I will oppose him just as vocally.

I believe that our efforts in Afghanistan and with the Taliban and Al-Queda were justified and were worthy causes. However, IMHO Iraq was premature, while I recognize that we may have ended up at war there anyway in the long run. I believe that had we waited and continued to pressure Iraq diplomatically, internationally, economically, etc., while pursuing Bin Laden and Al Queda, that if we ultimately had to resort to military force that we would have done so from a position of much greater strength, justification, and international support, and with better results.

You will never see me acquiesce when I oppose my government. I view that as my duty as an American citizen.

BTW, Henry, I admire you for seeking a higher education, as well as for your stated intention to serve our country in the military. But it doesn't take a masters degree to join the military, or to serve as an officer. Completing your masters degree would still be there after serving in the military, and there may be benefits available to help you do so.

If you sincerely feel that strongly about the cause, why not join up right now? Don't waste another minute, and complete your education after you have served. In either case, I wish you well.

Respectfully,

Jim