The irony of the Fallujah situation is that kindness has been largely the hallmark of how we have been dealing with Iraq.

The same Marines who are currently overrunning the city had been helping citizens, building things, and feeding people. This is studiously ignored by the American media, which has decided that good news is no news from Iraq, and I have to browse oddball websites to find out what's going on in this area.

There's a place between incautious and humanitarian.

Very true. It's not an easy place to find.

I once wrote that given a choice between security and liberty, I prefer erring towards liberty. Given a choice between humanitarian and cold battle calculations, I think in the long run we are better off erring toward humanitarianism.

What I would like to see from others who also believe this, is recognition of the fact that both of these approaches will be paid for in American lives.

In an America where totalitarian control over the security of our citizens is rejected (and no, the current Patriot Act does not qualify), more Americans will probably die from terror attacks. Who knows--this may be an acceptable price to pay for preserving liberty (Benjamin Franklin thought so). Sometimes it's not a price only soldiers have to pay.

In a war where soldiers err on the side of preserving civilian life and property, more American soldiers will die. Maybe this is a price worth paying to keep America's humanity. There is more than one way to die for your country. Yet the deaths are being paraded in America as signs of failure.

I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn. Some days, I believe our selective and cautious approach is the right way to go. But I have a few days when I am convinced that only a massive demonstration of force will convince people of this kind of culture.