Mom's a Boomer, and I'm a tail-end Gen Xer. I think that likely accounts for a good part of the difference. Are you aware of Strauss & Howe's work? I'm fairly typical of my generation - I don't have a deep-seated identification with any political pary or philosophy. I might vote Bush in '04, but I might vote Lieberman if he gets the nomination (ha!). Hell, I might even vote for Dean if he shows any geopolitical understanding (ha!). The other Democratic candidates are losers and jokers.

Strauss and Howe deal not only with the current generations, but past as well - there are established patterns. At times I have found back-of-the-neck-hair-raising parallels between current war politics and American Civil War politics. This is not coincidence. Unfortunately Bush is not Lincoln and Osama bin Laden is certainly not Lee.

Regarding the Global War on Terrorism (what an awful name!) in general, and Iraq's place in that war ... I think that may be partially gender-based. Women and men think differently - brains organized in different ways, so we don't perceive the same reality from the same set of facts.

And Mom and I are not operating from the same set of facts. StratFor used to have totally open archives. They put out less stuff then, and they weren't focused on subscription revenue. The Sunday after the E. African US embassy bombings in 1998, they put out a well-reasoned piece fingering Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation.

I have had half and eye open for stuff like that since then. In fact, I am nearly totally convinced that both Ramzi Youssef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were in fact working for Iraqi intelligence, on semi-permanent loan to al Qaeda. I also find the organization of Iraq's Unit 999 to be fascinating, and worthy of further inquiry.

In addition, my mind has been warped by our library here at home. I've been drawn in particular to our history and war books, and I'm fascinated by intelligence operations. So I'm inclined to think in weird ways about how war is conducted according to government beuaracracy, behavioral quirks of individual leaders and secret intelligence. I believe events today will be regarded very differently in 2040. Or maybe not - I watched most of CNN's minseries "Cold War" a couple years ago, narrated (oddly) by Kenneth Branaugh. At no time were the following topics discussed: the Venona transcripts, Operation Solo - Morris Childs CPUSA/FBI, the Mitrokhin papers.

I continue to be mystified why Bush chose to go with a secondary reason for the public justification of the Iraq war - Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's also the hardest to prove. There are overwhelming strategic reasons to occupy that patch of ground, even if there is no WMD, even if there is no Saddam-al Qaeda link.

I think there is some deep strategic planning going on - especially from Cheney's office, with Bush's knowledge and approval. I believe we are on track for confrontation with the Saudis in '05. Disturbingly, I don't know if they've got any sort of action plan for Iran - or even Syria.

I could go on, but it's late. In many ways I'm frustrated - the conduct of the war so far is not satisfactory. But criticism of it in the major media outlets and in the Democratic party is quite shallow, and, with few exceptions, intended to be destructive rather than constructive.

My local newspaper, like many nationwide, print NYT extracts for thier international news stories. I've stopped reading the A section. I can't take it anymore.

Victories are ignored.
Surprises are failures.
Minor setbacks are catastrophic defeats.
The Viet Cong are attacking out of the triple canopy jungle to the west of the Tigris.

Meanwhile (as one poster here likes to say), our real problems aren't seriously addressed at all.