Pessimism Be Damned, Glass in Iraq Is Still Half Full

With all the useless drivel about WMDs and waterboarding, its important to step back in time thirty years and remember that in the 80s the U.S. had no presence in the Mid East, no relationship with any leaders in the region (friend or foe), and no economic ties to the oldest and richest region in the world. At that time the U.S. and Russia were at odds, Afghanistan was in a tug-of -cold-war for power and conflicts were popping up in other regions with no ability for either superpower to intervene without the threat of escalation.

It would have been hard to imagine that a mere three decades later Russia would have collapsed, regional conflicts (like Kosovo and Bosnia) would be resolved by occupation alone with regional forces like NATO, and the U.S. would have divisions of troops, a permanently stationed navy and an entire wing of the airforce imbedded in three mid-eastern countries. Numerous former enemies (such as Ghadaffi) have given up terrorism and current threats, such as Iran, understand that if they misbehave they will suffer the instant wrath of U.S. retaliation (or preemptive strike).

Even with the terrorist attacks, the promise of regional economic growth by the American presence is worth the price for world stability. This may seem callous but, again, America is not positioned to invade. Its presence, as with Bosnia, is meant to stabilize. Part of the current instability has existed for thousands of years. Under the U.S. umbrella, new borders may be drawn, trade may begin with former enemies and the standard of living can elevate to western levels.

Over time freedom can grow- throughout history the most stubborn despotic societies have converted to modified democracies. Germany, Japan, Russia and others have built democratic societies after dictatorial or fuedal pasts. This will take time but most forget that even the U.S. had to go through a brutal civil war before it could evolve into a true free society. Again, so many are cynical of America's motives but there is ample precedent for our history of occupation and nation building that shows great results (the Marshall Plan , Germany and Japan). In retrospect I would have been more comfortable if our leaders had been honest with us from the beginning, " We are invading Iraq to kick some ass, create stability, help them build a free society and get the hell outta there!"

How many Iraqi lives is my ps3 worth?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04herbert.html?em&ex=1204866000&en=85633a4996272226&ei=5087%0A

I think this article brings up an interesting and overlooked result of the Iraq war. At what point do you sacrifice the health of the Iraqi people for the health of the US Economy? Ok, lets say that this war is not about overthrowing a ruthless dictator but creating a presence in the oil drenched, Israeli inhabited, terrorist safe haven Middle East. At what point does our economy stink so bad that it becomes illogical to sustain?

I don't have the answers to these questions nor am I well informed enough to speculate. However, pertaining to the election I suspect that those lower to middle class Americans who are really starting to get hit will look to the ill-informed/ill-advised decision to invade Iraq and wonder how much that decision has affected their checking account. Or do they really want a military hawk like McCain spending money in Iraq for the next 100 years or for the government to pay their child's college tuition and health care?