I run into a lot of well-meaning Democrats and fellow progressives who think, even though Bush got us into that war under false pretenses, we need to stay in Iraq. They seem to feel guilty over what Bush did and that we should stay there and fix the mess we made.

I'm talking about people like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton.

I feel bad for the Iraqi people, but anything we attempt there is doomed to failure. The Iraqi people will never trust us to rebuild their country and allow them the type of government they choose. They have every reason not to trust us and our troops and any relief workers will just be sitting ducks.

All we have to do is imagine ourselves in their situation and it becomes perfectly clear. Keith Knight explains this better than anyone.

Thanks Keith.

Yeah, I mean, who cares about a corrupt, murderous overlord, so long as my immediate needs are met?

Let's think. Oh I know. I'd probably skill-up, pack-up and leave. I probably wouldn't get my Lutheran friends to stuff Semtex in a Yukon and blow the front off a Methodist Church. I probably would not run down the street with 10 of my friends and shoot 50 people and dump them in a mass grave. I probably wouldn't fight to the death to preserve my right to murder and oppress and mutilate everyone else in the name of some vague ecumenical distinction few people can see. No, I'm pretty sure I'd snatch up the wife, all my kids, their significant others and their kids, everyones pets and I'd bug the fuck out. And if you're in my way there WILL be footprints on your head. Because that's what rational caring human beings do. WTF would you do?

Hell, reconstruction worked great in the south. It only took what? Lemme do the math...112 years to get things all the way cleaned up? Now Atlanta is NYC South, without the big hole in the ground. Yeah, I think maybe we all should rent "The Mouse that Roared" before they do come to save us, because we seem to have, um, how can I put this delicately? Fucked ourselves? Yeah, that's it...coming and going.

We do have weapons of mass destruction. So the results of a "pre-emptive" strike

would be... well....best not to think about it.

I for one welcome our liberating overlords.

Great cartoon - and I'm glad to see you've recovered from your bout of pneumonia!

If that's the price we would have to pay for liberation from the evil and corrupt Bush regime, I think I would be fine with it.

No occupying army could be worse than the GOP.

If our president (any president) proclaimed himself dictator for life, gassed any segment of the population that opposed him, cut off the nads of the members of US sports teams that did not win, kidnapped and tortured thousands of our citizens, shot his political opponents en-masse, poured $billions from our natural resources into his personal accounts, built dozens of mansions for himself from national proceeds, hired his kids to be his right hand thugs, pissed off the world by being a danger to their energy supplies, and DARED anyone to do anything about it, I just might welcome some assistance in getting rid of him.

I am not saying that the above required or demanded us to go do what we did. I mean, if people are fearful enough to live under those conditions, I figure that's their problem. Brave people revolt, as we did. I also figure these people are too stupid to take advantage of the huge opportunity that they have been handed. That is the biggest shame. Let's not forget, there was a significant segment of the population that was begging for relief. Unfortunately, after they got it, their stupidity immediately kicked in again.

Pull your head out of your colon, Kieth. There are no pure politicians. In fact the vast majority of them, democrats or republicans, are only the shredded remains of our constitution away from being another saddam. If you think there is hope in some democrat, just because he is not a republican, I feel sorry for you. Do you really think politics were better in this country when Clinton was president? Clinton/Bush/politician. The three are synonymous. We live in an oligarchy. The people with the big money are not about to let some piss-ant politician screw up their money machine.

Poco

You forgot to mention that the reason most of the country would look like post-Katrina New Orleans is Republicans running around blowing stuff up. Then they started killing Democrats as well as the occupation troops. Then the Republicans blew up the Democratis party headquarters and the Democrats started going after the Republicans. The occupation forces would then insist that this was NOT in fact a civil war.

SR...

You would leave.

You know, the problem is, you're assuming that the world you are used to, one with instant access to transportation, where your money is always worth the same it was this morning, and where the rest of the world *accepts* ex-americans, would still exist in this scenario.

It of course would not. And *that* is the exact situation most Iraqis find themselves in today.

Some people seem to believe that the average person in a dictatorship is *responsible* for the situation he finds himself in, as well as for the actions of the state as a whole. This is of course upside down. It's the citizen of a democracy who is responsible for the actions of his government. With *freedom* comes responsibility.

I greatly appreciate this cartoon, having posed a similar question many times myself in other venues and conversations. This perspective is desperately needed, and yet it is seldom presented to large numbers of Americans.

The "war on terror", even if we accept the terms and conditions of its architects (I don't), will not be "won" with guns and bombs. We can't kill everyone who hates us, and trying will only generate greater hatred. If there is ever going to be peace in the world, we need to come to some sort of understanding with people who do not view America through the rose-colored glasses that are permanently affixed to the heads of so many Americans. Most of us are not even aware of the historical events and perspectives that lead so many people in the Middle East (and much of the world) to fear and distrust our government. Even if we are justified in disagreeing with foreign assessments of America, we should know them and understand them, or we will never live in peace with the rest of the world.

As a culture, we are tragically limited by our inability to step outside our self-centered perspective. As citizens of the occupying power, we focus on whether the occupation is justifiable in our eyes. We see Iraqi resistance as further justification: if they don't accept our justifications, there must be something wrong with them. They are violent people, we conclude, so we need to stop the violence with overpowering force. We don't stop to wonder whether our use of force is a contributing cause of their violence.

I think we are losing our willingness and ability to empathize with others. That is both a cause and a consequence of all the partisanship and divisiveness we see. People are afraid to trust people of different ethnicities and belief systems because they can't see the common humanity through the differences. I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that most of the information we receive we receive about the world is delivered by TV, which tends to objectify people and do a poor job of promoting empathy.

Mr. Knight's cartoon is right on, because it cuts right through all that. As ignorant about the rest of our world, you don't need to know a lot of history to put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi. The same people who are still in favor of the war are often the ones who would be most outraged and willing to take up arms if the Iraqi plight were to befall them. This kind of question is seldom asked in public specifically because the answer is so obvious.