by Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (retired)

I found the essayto be interesting, as it brought up a lot of points I have been wondering about. I'm far from a history expert, but most of what was said in the essay rings true.

A lot of people make the point that Saddam Hussein has slaughtered thousands (even a million or more) of his own citizens, and that the ones that are left are in a constant state of terror and poverty. I am absolutely not defending him, but it seems as if a lot of those killed were seen by him as a danger to Iraq, and he took them out pre-emptively. I don't think very many were killed just for the hell of it (though some probably were). Keep in mind that there are several different ethnic groups in Iraq, which hold each other in varying degrees of distrust and/or fear and/or contempt.

Also, it seems that for many Iraqis, life under Saddam was not bad, especially compared to the lives of many of those in neighbouring countries. Education and health care were free, the infrastructure was good. People will put up with a lot from their leaders as long as the necessities of life (or maybe a little more) are provided to them. If you are the right ethnicity and don't cause trouble, life can be OK.

America is a very homogenous country - folks in Florida aren't all that much different from those in California or Washington or Maine or Iowa. It's hard for citizens of a country like this to understand the realities of life in a non-homogeneous country. Canada has the duality of Quebec and the rest of the country, but even this is minor compared to the ethnic and cultural differences present in many other countries. If someone were to eradicate 100,000 people in Seattle, the people of Detroit would be outraged and terrified. I think maybe when Saddam killed Kurds, there were likely a lot of Iraqi citizens who honestly cheered his actions. This is a terrible and inhuman way to look at things, but it's reality.

When 9/11 happened, people from most of the western world were horrified and outraged and terrified. A lot, probably a large majority, of Muslims were sickened by the action, too. But a significant number (prominently displayed by the media) cheered. Because the US is, to them, the enemy, a terrible threat to their beliefs and their view of how the world should be. With an enemy so powerful, how can a small group fight back? With terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is, in my mind, wrong-headed. But so too is invading another country pre-emptively, a country with vastly different ethnicity and cultural views than that of the invader. Because no matter what happens in the course of the war, the number of radicals will increase along with their determination to fight back.

And wasn't that supposed to be the very thing the war was intended to prevent?