You make some good points, particularly regarding Europe, although I must point out that Europe is fully engaged in trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and I'm not seeing a lot of positive results. They literally don't have the troops and resources on their own to make a credible "stick," and Iran knows it. We may have to ask ourselves exactly what the enthusiastic support of Europe actually buys us in international security, other than good will and warm fuzzies. This is not about honesty or anything like that, but sheer capability. As far as moral support is concerned, does anyone really think Zarqawi or the insurgents would be doing one thing differently if there were French and German troops in the coalition?

I will readily concede that in the area of police work, Europe has done an excellent job against terror, rounding up cells, capturing potential terrorists in Europe, and helping squelch their financial support.

But Europe and America--at least the current U.S. administration--just aren't on the same page in dealing with international dangers. On a curve that has one end at General Patton, and the other end at Neville Chamberlain, these two political entities are not yet at those far ends, but they are certainly in different places. Maybe they always have been. Same is true on this board, I suppose.

Until the jury is in--and it may be some years from now--we won't really know if the current U.S. approach will work. I tend to be optimistic. It hasn't been two years yet, and I really want to see how the constitution develops. I have a much higher opinion of the average Iraqi than the New York Times does.

As far as my prediction of what much of the left's response would be if we had invaded Iran instead, I stand by it. You and others here may be notable exceptions, but for a lot of them out there, this isn't about the rationality of war in Iraq, or Iran, and never has been.