I'll have to step back for a bit, digest the info in your links, do some thinking. Yes, I realize that the liberation of the Iraqis is not primarily why many Americans supported the war. And yes, that troubles me.

Raoul, I guess I just have a hard time with the absolute: we do not interfere with the internal affairs of other states. It seems so crystal clear to me that the future of Iraq is about 1000 times brighter with the Baath Party gone...I won't resort to the "you've gotta break eggs..." cliche, but life and growth are often painful things. Enormous issues, with lots at stake, are often resolved only through intensely passionate struggle.

We didn't invade Belgium or Canada after all...we invaded a nation that had for decades been under the heel of a monsterous dictator. We didn't topple a legitimate regime. The Baath Party had no popular mandate and was shockingly abusive of the people under its sway. Saddam and his sons may have been able to hold power in Iraq for decades longer had there been no invasion. In what way could that be interpreted as being to the benefit of the Iraqis?

Also, what about Afghanistan? Did America have no business there?

And sure, there are other dictators kicking around. The swaggering response would be "We'll get to them," but of course I hope and pray it never comes to that. I think that is, in a real way, exactly what this is all about: trying to avoid a wider and far more costly conflict in the future. America can't free the oppressed of the entire world in one fell swoop, and in any case I think you'd agree it would be absurd to try.

I think Iraq was "selected" for a multitude of reasons, the most important being that Saddam had demostrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, and his regime was blocking international attempts to verify their compliance with UN resolutions to disarm. After 9/11, it was a terrible miscalculation on his part to think America would continue to sit back while he thumbed his nose.