Here's where I have been and where I am at right now. Prior to the invasion, there was a fair amount of chatter regarding the nuclear build-up in the rogue state of North Korea. At that time, I honestly felt that the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" was far more identifiable in Korea than it was in Iraq. Turns out, I was right. So we went into Iraq on false pretenses and committed the United States to a position that is widely unpopular in the world.

Now, I am not necessarily against doing the unpopular thing. But I think the Bush administration failed to account for the fact that the Cold War was over. In years past, Europe was always relatively quick to respond to the lead of the United States because they knew that the "bogey man" was right next door and that the United States was the only thing keeping the "bogey man" at bay. So the US not only had a position of authority, but by virtue of being the protectors of the West, it had the allegiance of Europe.

What Bush and his administration failed to account for is the simple fact that Europe does not support Israel in the same manner or to the same degree that the US does. Thus, Europe does not rile the angst of the Islamic Middle East in the same way that the US does. And now that the Cold War is over, Europe mistakenly believes that they no longer need the US in the same way that they did during the Cold War. I say "mistakenly" because I also believe that Europe is acting in a rather infantile way -- exploring its newfound independence at the expense of a united West. I would go even farther to suggest that if Europe recognized the value of maintaining a united front, we would be seeing a much different situation in Iraq than what we are currently witnessing. For if Europe had the vision to recognize the stabilizing benefit of a Western superpower, the Middle East would essentially be taking on the entire world as opposed to one country. And that would make life very difficult for the oil-producing region.

Having said all that, we did go in to Iraq and we have committed ourselves to a course of action. My problem is that I have conflicting thoughts that I have been unable to sort out. On the one hand, I believe that Iraq has decended to the level of a civil war; and furthermore, I believe that civil war is fueled by religious differences that date back many, many years. So I have real doubts as to whether Iraq can be stablized by building up US forces in the region. You can't overpower religious hate. You can guard against it. You can do what you can to minimize its impact. But in the end, religious worldview coupled with ethnic differences is a deadly recipe for hundreds of years of anger and hatred (see the 1500 year history of the Balkans for instance). So I don't know if I really believe that we can stabilize the region and install a viable democracy.

On the other hand, the United States is in a very dangerous position. The last major war we fought (By "major war," I am of course referring to Vietnam, not the "Gulf War" of the early 90s because that is a misnomer of the highest degree) ended in a disasterous withdrawal and arguably the loss of respect on a worldwide level. We were no longer invincible. We were no longer the US of World War II. We pull out of this one, and I would argue that we may end up losing our status as the last remaining superpower of the world. Europe has abandoned us and the Middle East will have stood up against us. And that is a very, very bad thing.

So on the one hand I am not sure that a viable democracy can be established. But on the other hand, withdrawal could arguably damage our credibility in the future and could even leave us open to more attacks because the agressors no longer believe we can and/or are willing to defend ourselves. So its a bit of a rock and a hard place.

As for your comparisons to post-World War II Japan, I don't know if I buy it. There are two major differences in my mind. One, through the use of nuclear power, the United States had put on a display of force unlike anything the world had ever seen. Thus, there was no real option for Japan other than cooperation. Two, the Japanese were not internally torn in the same way that Iraq is. Thus, Japan was not tearing itself apart on the inside while the US was trying to rebuild.

So, now that I have shared where I am at, what do you think? I would really like to know, becasue I don't think there is an easy answer to this; and I think you guys often have interesting insights.