Another question to the pro-war people: do you really think we're seeing the might of Islamic/Islamist/Muslim/Arab (what have you) protest with the WTC and the suicide bombers in Israel? As devastating as these are, these were planned and executed by only a couple of Islamic groups. Think what we'll have when so many more join the fight, when the anger becomes that much greater, and the frustration of our 'superior' forces that much more bitter.

Shelley, I think you overstate the potential of a united Islamic force. While Islam is a unifying force among the disparate cultures that make up the Islamic world, there are still significant cultural differences which effectively nullify any effort at a concerted response.

And while unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq is likely to stir up sentiment in the so-called "Arab street," capitalizing on that sentiment and converting it into some form of directed action requires a great deal of social infrastructure and a leader. The installed leaders in most Islamic countries are mostly concerned with ensuring "business as usual" continues, so they are unlikely to use the facilities at their disposal to try to organize an angry populace into some form of direct action.

If anything, they will likely be trying to quell any general disorder, for fear of it getting out of control, resulting their own loss of power.

Now, none of that is to say there are not still significant challenges posed by the political fallout of any effort. And there is the likelihood of large numbers of eager new young recruits to the terrorist training camps. How all of that gets factored into the cost of any potential conflict is a bit above my paygrade.

I have to ask those who support the war a question: do you all think that this is going to be bloodless? A quick romp with our superiour forces and our big bombs? Run over there, kick Hussein's butt, swagger around a bit and then come home?

First let me say that I have not made up my mind whether or not I support the unilateral use of force against Iraq. To me, a compelling case has not been made as of yet. Weapons of mass destruction don't particularly worry me, we lived for nearly a half-century with an avowed enemy armed to the teeth with WMD and managed to get by. The warbloggers all believe the kind of deterrence that worked for the Soviet Union won't work for Islamicists, and there may be something to that, but I'm not sure I'm willing to invade an entire country on a hypothetical.

But I digress.

As you imply, and as I'm sure the ardent supporters of military action against Iraq would only be too eager to agree, it will most certainly not be bloodless. Such is the nature of war, isn't it? It's a bloody thing. We seem to be making some progress of late in reducing the amount of bloodshed, but still. What's that expression? "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."

What troubles me about this affair is how we might choose to go about it. I am afraid we may make compromises in our selection of course of action, hoping for the best, and instead confronting the worst. That is to say, if we try to go with some lesser amount of force, because that's all that time, geography and lift afford us (there's another expression about strategy and logistics, but I'll leave that aside), we may end up shedding more blood, both ours and theirs, in the long run, than a more "expensive" plan might have required.

All of this is purely speculation at this point.

One thing I would like to see more discussion of is what the end game is supposed to look like. And how to we know when we've achieved it?

I haven't made up my mind yet. If I end up deciding that it is not in our best interests, and we proceed anyway, I will do what I can to support my brothers and sisters in arms. I can do nothing less. Once committed, we must honor their commitment to us. I only hope we make the right choices going forward. I can't say I have a great deal of faith in some of the people involved.

We live in interesting times.

Bb:question: do you all think that this is going to be bloodless?

Please don't drop the context. It is already not bloodless.

Bb:A quick romp with our superiour forces and our big bombs? Run over there, kick Hussein's butt, swagger around a bit and then come home?

It's unlikely we will suffer enough military casualites to even equal the civilian deaths we have already experienced much less the number of dead from a 5kt nuke going off in midtown Manhattan. If current history is any guide we will inflict far more casualities on the Iraqi's though. Probably on the order of 10 to 100 for every American soldier killed. It'll be a bloodbath. I seriously doubt that anyone will deny that.

re: If we go back to invade Iraq we will unite the Arab countries in a way they've never been united before

You are stating as fact something you can't know and the current evidence flatly contradicts. The Arab world did not unite against the US with the liberation of Afghanistan. Israel is not at war with the Arab world despite the united implacable hatred for it by millions. In fact, it wasn't the crushing IDF victories over Arabs that kicked off the intifada but the Oslo peace process. You're making a statement of faith not evidence.

And Bb, a vast number of people have already died. They are also dying every day in Iraq. Don't ignore that.

Chris... the people who are dying every day in iraq are dying of largely children dying from dehydration as a redsult of dysentery as a result of devastated infrastructure as a result of ceaseless US bomming and eleven years of "economic sanctions" designed to upset the control of the rich oil basin that Iraq straddles. Two senior UN officials who were directly responsible for administration of the sanctions program (Halliday and van Sponeck) resigned in order to speak out AGAINST the program.

Also, please remind me, how did Oslo kick off the Intifada? What were the issues?

wow.. typo city