While it is true that these ex-soldiers now seeking refuge in Canada could have enlisted for any number of reasons - college money, the surge in patriotism following Sept. 11 - I'd be willing to bet that many if not most of them supported Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Now that we've lost this war through our own utter incompetence and hubris, guess what? It's not popular anymore. Now that they realize war isn't just a silly video game, and they could actually be seriously wounded or die, they want to quit.

Translation: war's okay when America gets to kick ass and kill thousands of innocent civilians in an illegal conflict, but not so much fun when the hunters become the hunted. They're all too typical of my fellow Americans' mass opinion over the course of this war: when the going gets tough, the "tough" quit. The mass of Americans doesn't really care that the war was illegal, only that we've lost.

Soldiers don't get to decide what wars they fight in. That's part of the deal, and is an important principle of civilian control of the military. Yes, it's a problem when you have a criminal administration like ours, but we voted for it, didn't we?

As I said in my previous post, there's an honorable option for soldiers who've had a genuine revelation about the awfulness of war and don't want to be a part of it anymore: civil disobedience. Tell the military you're not going to report for duty and face the consequences. Yes, it'll be painful and difficult, and you'll likely go to prison for a while, but you just might emerge as a hero at the end. Fleeing to Canada - WHEN YOU VOLUNTEERED TO BEGIN WITH - is just cowardice.

This quote from the University of Toronto professor ably sums up why these ex-soldiers will have a difficult time making their case. It was their choice to join the military; now they seem to think they're civilians who can simply quit a job they don't like anymore.

Sorry.

As much as I hate Bush's war, and as much damage as he's probably done to the morale of the military, soldiers don't get to quit when they feel like it. They may have had a genuine change of heart now that they've seen mass murder up close. In that case, civil disobedience - and facing its consequences - might be an honorable option. But they get no points for choosing the easy way - taking advantage of the hospitality and relative sanity of our northern neighbor.

Still, it's likely more than a few have fled out of plain old cowardice. They don't mind doing the shooting; they just don't like it when the Iraqis shoot back.

When you join the military by choice, you simply don't get the same sympathy for desertion as someone who was conscripted against his will.

I'll keep donating to, voting for, and sometimes working for progressives as I always do. But what makes me uneasy about the current political situation is this: does the American public now disapprove of the Iraq war because it was corrupt and illegal, or simply because (in all likelihood) it's been lost?

I realize that part of the debate springs from how we were sold a bill of goods - "greeted as liberators" and all that - which turned out to be so wrong that it would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.

But given the narcissism of our culture, our chauvinism toward "others" (like Muslims in particular) and our overall lack of interest in the rest of the world, I wonder if the souring of the public mood is equivalent to - and as fickle as - that of sports fans whose team has just experienced several losing seasons.

Ultimately I'm just not convinced that a confluence of thoughtful people, aided by new technology, is enough to offset the - yes, I'll just say it - blatant stupidity of so much of the public.

It seems just as likely to me that the Iraq disaster might prove to be a catalyst for a new round of American isolationism, which could be the most dangerous reaction of all. I hope to be proven wrong, but I've been too appalled at the choices of my fellow citizens for most of the last 20 years to be overly optimistic.

I don't necessarily mean this as a damning statement (no pun intended) but rather a statement of fact.

This is, for me, the fatal contradiction that lies at the heart of all organized Christianity. I don't know enough about Judaism or Islam to have an opinion about what those congregations should do, but from a Christian perspective the spiritually correct action would be to welcome any sex offender who claims to be repentant. But of course that might drive away other members who contribute large sums of money to the church.

Jesus' admonition about being able to serve either God or Mammon, but not both, is on poignant display here. There are many worldly risks (financial, reputation, membership) to an organization in allowing sex offenders to be present, but there are spiritual risks in NOT allowing them there. I guess I'm not surprised at the choice most churches make.