Quite a while ago, I asked a very simple question on this board:

- Who do you want to see win in Iraq?

- And if your answer is our side, why aren't you acting like it?

Military bloggers keep asking, if you support the troops, why don't you want us to win?


- a fair question if this was WW2. Justification for most other wars is open to debate. Think of WW1 - more fanatical nationalism than ever before .. but surely most people now know it was a disgusting carnage where millions died and suffered for the sake of imperial and political interests. I have heard old Anzac veterans say exactly that - who would have more moral authority than those who were actually there, fought and survived?

And Vietnam and Iraq are definitely even more contentious, ultraright bloggers notwithstanding ..

Iraq has more moral purpose than WW1 but certainly not as clear as WW2 - I am a fence-sitter who still hopes for a good resolution with minimal casualties to troops and civilians alike. But your evangelism here assumes moral equivalence to WW2, and only then do you ask these questions above - thus pushing people into a Hobbsian corner. OUR Hobbsian choice was that we as spectators, were forced into accepting this fait accompli by Bush and co against our will, but now that its happened, we wish the best for a positive outcome. That's Clint Eastwood's view, for instance, and it easily sits outside the 'box' you try and create for us with your challenge