Capt. Hunter, I think your point might be partially valid, but from what I know of American psyche, I think a series of attacks on American civilians would have intensified US resolve - assuming the outcome were the same. Remember, that the US emerged from WWII stronger than it entered it, while the UK, France, and Germany emerged weaker.
I think the American populace is very outcome driven. Support in Vietnam failed mainly, in my opinion, as a result of no progress and Americans coming home in body bags.


Personally, I've been doing some thinking about the issue of Iraq, especially in relation to Powell's comments. He definitely convinced me Iraq is violating 1441. What I am debating - though Bush has not asked my opinion, is what the US should do about it. The issue is, for me, "Is the situation in Iraq a clear and present danger to the US or US interests such that it is worth the expense of manpower and likely loss of American soldiers to confront?" One analysis I heard, that to me, sounds well-thought, indicates that Hussein is very unlikely to lend al Qaeda chemical or biological weapons - if word ever got out that he did so he knows Iraq would be turned to glass and if nothing else, he is a pragmatist. He is not a zealot - he tries to appeal to Islamic extremists when it suits his purposes, but he is not one.

I don't know the anwer as to whether Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US. If not, however, it is worth noting that containment must be active, something that was badly slipping by the late '90's. If Iraq will not comply and is not an immediate danger, then if containment is to be followed it means years of Iraqi children dying while Hussein diverts money for food to be money for palaces. Are we prepared to do that? Because if we were just to drop sanctions, I don't think Hussein would be overthrown. I think within a decade he'd be mucking around with Iran or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia again.

Does that mean I think military action isn't the right course of action? I don't know. I don't have enough info. To be honest, the fact that Powell, who bent over backwards to support a diplomatic solution, is now leaning towards military action speaks volumes for me. This is a man who has watched people die in battle, who has had his own life at risk at Vietnam. He is a man who I believe knows the cost of military action, far better than I do. And he has spent a lifetime generating a capital of trust and character, which inclines me to give him the benefit of the doubt, far more than Bush. If Powell were told to say something he didn't believe, I don't think he would do so - I think he would resign rather than sacrifice the trust he has invested for himself.

But my trust in Powell doesn't mean I can't question. He is human as the next guy - probably more intelligent than the next guy too, but that doesn't mean he's perfect. He can believe in something and be wrong.

The one thing I will say is Powell had better also be busy behind the scenes on the Korean front, as I think North Korea is far more likely to sell a nuke to terrorists than Iraq - they have the means, motive, and opportunity.


Hmm, I seem to be rambling so I'll end now. I wish I knew the exact answers.