JKP's comment reminded me of the idle talk after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that something called a Peace Dividend might be available to either reduce the tax burden or serve domestic needs. That went over like a fart in church.

Iraq War I was soon launched, and amounted to an informercial for the military industrial complex, as well as a way to retire that nagging, unamerican "Vietnam Syndrome."

Of course, the key ingredient in making all this work was the complete acquiescence of the media, which, unbelievably, is even worse now.

I was astonished to compare the coverage of actual debate in congress over Iraq the first, which by Iraq the second, had been completely eliminated. Every network promoted the upcoming war as though it were a blockbuster miniseries, and practically the only one who was saying war wasn't inevitable was the Decider himself.

Of course, when the miniseries turned out to be an expensive and dreary long-running drama, the networks lost interest, and guess what? So did many Americans.

It's telling that even Hiatt has on some level, preferring to talk about Somalia, while ignoring the elephant in the room, or explaining that it's really a mouse with an endocrine disorder.

I'm with mwhite... Send them all.

The deeply ironic thing about this is that Mr. Hiatt is expressing a desire to minimize the anger with the U.S. and the occurrence of violence, but he - like many other 'war advocates' - is completely unwilling to consider using some less violent approaches to achieving those goals.

Folks like him, over and over, reflexively dismiss a non-violent approach as 'showing weakness, and therefore likely to increase violence' and are so sure of their view that they refuse to even consider a non-violent approach on its own merits.

Imperialists would be a lot more tolerable if they were a bit more willing to use non-violent methods for achieving their goals.

Blood thirsty intellectual sadist think they can hide behind the aura of intellectual respectability that inks give to their thoughts. When proponents of mass murder fanatics are match with our version, the former pale in comparison.

Glenn,

You missed one of the biggest flaws in Hiatt's argument...he doesn't tell us what he thinks we ought to be doing in Somalia.

The facts as he presents them are:

1) Ineffective/non-existant Somali government resulting in a lawless nation where terrorists can exist in relative safety.

We can:

a) Do nothing, and hope that none of the terrorists in Somalia will eventually take action against the U.S.

b) Conduct air strikes, which he contends don't solve the problems that create the conditions of chaos (true). However, assuming you've hit the right target, it does kill the terrorists.

c) Invade, occupy, and conduct nation building at enormous cost to the U.S. in lives and treasure (with mixed success at best after a number of years if we accept Iraq as the model.)

d) Try and change conditions in Somalia through internation sanctions, aid-programs or other instruments of soft power.

Instead, according to Fred our best option is e) stay in Iraq.

How do we prepare the arena for ground invasion again? Just asking.

"BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US air strike damaged a hospital in the Iraqi capital's violent Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Saturday, injuring 20 people, as American forces claimed to have killed 14 militiamen. . . ."

He won't have to wonder why terrorists flew an airplane into the Freedom Tower.

I think you overlooked the obvious flaw in Fred's thinking. The flaw was that there were no "good guys" to aid and abet like we have in Somalia. A robust presence isn't always a bad idea. Invading Iraq was.

I really wouldn't care what the composition of Iraq was (and the idea that there aren't magical "good guys" in Iraq like there are elsewhere is absurd). We shouldn't be invading other countries and occupying them and controlling them unless they're credibly threatening to attack us or have attacked us. That's isn't a controversial proposition in most of the world.

You really think your Government and country are so Good and Trustworthy and noble that it has the right to invade other countries at will at will -- maintain what you euphemistically call "a robust presence" -- whenever it decides that doing so will help "good guys?"

Do you find it somewhat odd or hypocritical to be continuously writing brilliant articles about the failures of our war mongering leaders, only to then take advertising dollars from the Pentagon?

Where do you stand? I look forward to a reply.

Actually, I think it's obnoxiously self-indulgent to limit the reach of your ideas -- even to bankrupt yourself -- just to prove how pure you are. If the Air Force wants to finance anti-war commentary, more power to them.

You don't understand, Glenn

The US doesn't leave a country we've attacked until either (a) they capitulate totally and unconditionally to what we want or (b) we are effectively or actually defeated.

The Army is still pissed about Vietnam. Just a few more hundred thousand troops and unrestricted bombing campaigns...

We did precisely that in Vietnam. We left before the North capitulated or we had been effectively or actually been defeated, so it wouldn't be the first time. There is precedent. We also left Iraq in GWI after they had been driven from Kuwait and capitulated. The Republican Guard units were the only effective combat units left, (regular conscripts were surrendering en masse), and the RG units were all in retreat back to Baghdad.

This is a fine doctrine when dealing multilaterally with an aggressor nation. We were the unilateral aggressor nation in Vietnam and GW II.

So why is this not also a cautionary example for John "Bombiranne" McCain? And should a President McCain initiate air strikes on Iran, assuming Boy George hasn't already done so by then, is there any doubt that Fred would think that bombing is, in and of itself, just a fabulous idea? Unless, of course, McCain decides to invade Iran, too. Then Fred will extol McCain's strategic brilliance at not limiting himself to problematic air strikes.