Well, I went and read Henley's entry, and I came away rather less impressed than you were. True, it is a relief to see someone opposed to the war who can still compose his ideas calmly and rationally. Henley is no moonbat. But underneath all the all the measured words and carefully-delineated reasonings I get a sense that his opposition comes not so much from the conclusions of cold, hard logic (or even compassionate, warm logic) but from the his own instinctive "ugh!" reaction to mess, strife, and the possibility of failure. That his instincts may be just as wrong as he claims are those of the "hawks" does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Henley. He is righteous, and the "hawks" are in for a spiritual scourging that they will rightly deserve, at which he will be pleased to dolefully shake his head and sigh "I won't say I told you so."

So the soldiers may experience "coarsening" of their nature; he seems to base this upon one incident, still not fully investigated, of a number of American soldiers apparently causing the drowning of a relative (I thought it was a cousin, not a brother) of a popular Iraqi blogger. All I can say is the effects of waging war upon the members of the forces doing the waging are well-known, and "coarsening" is not the only one. If that were so then I expect him to condemn the members of World War 2-era military and on back of being "coarsened" and somehow diminished as human beings. Note: just because you, personally, disapprove of a course of action that does not automatically mean that the other people taking part in it are evil, apt to evil, or inevitable allies of evil.

I sense also, underlying all this concern about the bad effect this war is having/will have on humanity, or at least Americans, the weary "pox on 'em all" don't-want-to-deal-with-it isolationist attitude. That attitude, while a standard reaction to war, is not really a solution to the problems that led up to it ("while you may fence yourselves in, you cannot fence the world out", obligatory Tolkien reference).

To end this overly-long comment, I offer this blog entry from a person in Iraq to perhaps counter, or stand as a counterpoint, to Mr. Henley's hopeless wail. (Scroll down to "the First Candle.") I don't think Mohammed feels that the entire endeavor has been in vain. But what does he know; he just lives there. (Link from Random Jottings.)

Thanks for your work.

By fate, I have spent most of my life traveling the globe. My passport is American, long ago was in Vietnam, writing now from India. When I say "we", I mean humans, not my countrymen or gender or race. We is everybody. It seems a higher degree of understanding than when I used to see things as us and them. It just grew, feels mystical, functions like nature, which has no gaps.

My objections to American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, both very beautiful countries, have simply to do with inefficiency, narrowness of vision, and lack of understanding about the power in what we call ego

Inefficiency, means Americans could not have done more to create more terrorists, achieving the opposite of its intentions.

Narrowness of vision, means human life is far more varied than any one culture can comprehend, and the way things function is perfect for that place. Iraq needs a strongman, so that's what is there. Japan and India, both Asia, completely different, unbelievably different. Democracy for west asian tribes? Impossible. It doesn't have the remotest connection to the historically functioning mindset.

And ego, which should be the simplest of things to see. My friend steps on my toe, no problem, some strange guy in the supermarket does, its a confrontation. How little we understand that our neighbors feel as strongly about themselves as we do about ourselves. So, expect some resistance, and the futility of invasion.

The number one world movie of the uselessness of the eye for an eye philosophy is Israel/Palestine. It doesn't work. Figure it out.

Nice blog, Henley's too; I enjoy Riverbend, many more.

The world is learning some tough but important lessons the next few years. Watch with joy.

If an eye-for-an eye doesn't work and turning the other cheek gets you two burned cheeks, where do you turn?

Just in the last two decades we have seen many examples of genocide, both in Africa and the mid_east, without anyone doing anything to stop it, let alone prevent it in the first place. We have been attacked abroad and at home without doing anything, from our viewpoint, to justify it. It seems to me to be the lesser of two evils to try and identify regimes that are either inciting or supporting terrorists and get rid of them rather than continue to get beat up periodically. Sometimes you have to pursue the Darwinian solution. If it comes to a choice between my survival [America's] or someone elses guess who I choose.

Oh great, Neo weighs in. You know, ana-ma, this time there really is a spoon.

Wes, you make my point, us and them gets us the status quo. Andrea, huh? Andrew, check out cricket, the ball comes as fast as a hardball, from the same distance, but it is bounced, right at you if the bowler wants. Brian Lara, West Indies, just got 400 runs in one innings, never done before, like Bonds going 8 for 8, all homers.

In the buildup to hostilities I recall a conversation with a good friend - steadfast member of the ABB crowd. I was lamenting that nowhere did we see the kinds of "protests" he and I participated in under Reagan. Specifically, I was wondering where all the folks where who protested/campaigned against corporations actively investing in apartheid South Africa. Whether or not that had an effect upon Botha's government (i'd like to think so), it was the proper, nay, the noble protest.

Today we see a different style of protest where the most convoluted equivocation rules. It matters not how repressive any other regime/government is, with the presence of any nebulas tie to US administration, past or present, it becomes America's fault. (Especially when a president has an R after his name.)

While I can understand why other nationalities hate the US (at least intellectually) I cannot fathom the depth of the homegrown acrimony. It's almost as if no one cares what's best, only that Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter) is utterly humiliated.

Whether or not one agrees with why we are in Iraq, it is a fait acompli. The questions should be forward looking, not blame placing (that will come later). International involvement needs to be proactive, not the petulant finger pointing of present. But therein lies the biggest problem. All parties are culpable. And to argue who is more culpable is to ignore the real problem.

Eating crow is difficult enough, yet with others promising to gloat, the bitter, but necessary banquet will not occur.
I'd like to think our leaders (and their supporters) could grow up. I do not, however, have much faith.