Frank wrote: "Iraq is an Arab country that was under the boot of a secular (but still professed Islamic) dictator. The Islamic religion was suppressed but just below the surface. I agree that Iraqis tend to be more secular which works in our favor to build an Arab secular state with a secular army"

Okay, two very important points here.

1) Arab is not the same thing Muslim and Arab Muslim is NOT fundamentalist Muslim. Arab is like saying 'European' or 'English'. Its different than Christian, although nearly all English are christians. This is important because you are trying to say we are taking the fight to the Muslim Fundamentalist court. If the arabic ethnicity of Iraq is why you are stating that we are taking the war to Radical Islamists- then you are unequivocally unjustified in your statement. Your premises do not force your conclusion, you are not voicing a logically coherent argument.

2) You state that the secularity of Iraq works in our favor, to build a secular state- yet you point to their Muslim-ness as CAUSE for this war (taking the fight ... fundamentalism). Is it the case that you support this war, ultimately, based on the religious convictions of a people who favor SECULARISM (Iraq has a tradition of being more secular than surrounding areas)? And If so, how does that jive with AMERICAN values?

Frank wrote "They are divided by political borders but they consider themselves to be brothers and intertwined far more than I might feel about another Anglo Saxon. "

The politics du-jour of the Arabic world is one that pays substantial lip-service to the idea of Arab Unity. This is lip service, and will remain so. Arab lands have demonstrated themselved as FAR more contentious than Anglo-Saxon/Euro/American politics. Even the non ideological OPEC has shot itself in the foot at every turn, and the Arab League can not even get a quorum together. Your argument of 'enmeshment' is difficult to see as intuitive. Furthermore, even if we grant Arab 'brotherhood', this has nothing to do With Muslim Fundamentalism. As you point out- Iran is not entirely an Arab state, but IS a fundamentalist Muslim state. Again- this argument does not hold water (that Iraq is the 'backyard' of Muslim Fundamentalism), and I can't accept it on THAT basis.

Frank wrote: " I am convinced that Islamic radicals consider Iraq their home turf whether you do or not."

A multitude of incorrect folks are convinced they are right. Nearly every time I have turned our wrong in my life, it was preceeded by a period in which I was convinced I was right (tongue-in-cheek, Frank). Thats just the way being right-or-wrong works. That you are convinced and convicted only means that you are convinced and convicted. If you hold yourself to be both rational and correct, you would demonstrate your argument in logically consistent ways. You have not done so, at least with this post, or at least in any sort of way I can fathom.

Frank wrote "Being pragmatic "

Pragmatic is as pragmatic does. You claim pragmatism, but you are attacking an Arab state to show Muslim Fundamentalists that the United States can't be pushed around. Some of these fundamentalists, like Iran, are the blood enemies of Iraq, while tepidly-or-relatively-secular Syria was at least a sometimes ally of that state. Squashing an Apple to show the orange not to screw with the berries? This makes no sense. Whatsoever. It may be satisfying to watch Iraqis blown to bits on TV after 9/11, but it doesn't work as a logically sound ideology.

You view your supported course of action as Pragmatic because you have decided this course of action is correct. That is not really capital-P Pragmatism, just conviction and following the edicts of what you think is right.

Davin L.