I raved about the lack of it during the first Iraq war. I never bought the argument that we were taking on Saddam because we felt bad for Kuwait's sovereignty. We've ignored lots of other allies over the years that had just as many bad things happen. No, it was obviously clear our entry (and I'm not saying it was wrong by any means) was about keeping the world's oil supply sane and stable. It was also about finding a way to disarm a little meglomaniac and his buildup of weapons.

But why in the hell couldn't we have said that publicly? Why this need to create these falsehoods that everyone knows are bullshit?

We have a huge stake in what happens in the world's energy market and right or wrong about our overindulgence, that's a separate issue. We're completely justified in ensuring our economy doesn't go down in flames because of a regional squabble. It's an easy sell to the world if you just let them know publicly that the stability of our economy directly affects theirs as well.

The problem with the second incursion into Iraq was that it was complete and utter opportunism at work and there was no truth to be told that the world or our citizens would've bought. We didn't care about economic or social stability. No, we wanted more power and wealth and excuses into bullying our way into the region.

ER, I'm afraid that apology you would've required, had it been absolutely truthful, would've have been enough because it wouldn't have been that we were just mistaken but that we were despicable human beings for allowing our greed to override our common sense.

I'm afraid there simply was no scenario where more resources, a draft, or more of an international buyin would've changed the final outcome. Only a portion of the blunder was military. The main screw up was not understanding the huge cultural differences. Those can only change over possibly decades but more likely centuries.

Art