I believe that the War in Iraq was a terrible idea from the beginning, and it was doomed to failure before it was even begun, because of these three reasons: 1) We were morally wrong to start a war against a country that had not attacked us or our allies; 2) The justifications for the War were lies, either deliberate lies or untruths based on incompetence; 3) There was never any chance that a Muslim population would accept "liberation" from a non-Muslim army of invaders, particularly from the USA, which is the strongest supporter of their hated enemy Israel in the world.

In view of these three facts, the War in Iraq was doomed from the start: it never could have succeeded, no matter how well it was planned or administered. And it never can succeed now, no matter how long we stay in Iraq or how many troops we send there.

The Neo-Conservatives disagree with my beliefs. They believe the War was a very good idea, even if the stated justifications were not exactly true. They believe its failures were caused by bad planning and bad administration, not by any flaw in the basic idea. Many of them believe that it was needed to protect Israel. And they believe that everything can still succeed if we merely improve our planning and administration

And so it boils down to these two sides in the debate: those who believe the War in Iraq can succeed, if only we make some changes; and those who believe it cannot succeed, no matter what we do.


If you believe it can succeed, you should support Bush and a continued U.S. presence, "for as long as it takes." If you believe, as I do, that it never can succeed because it was doomed from the start, you should support a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, as soon as it is physically possible.

There is no real middle ground.

Blessings to you. May God help us all.