I don't blog it much anymore, partly for lack of time, and partly because I think that anyone who still thinks we made the right choice in going to Iraq (except for those of you who think this somehow is a "hindsight" advantage) is not going to be convinced by me. So maybe this will be a final stab. I dunno.

If you want to catch up on what is going on in the heads of us anti-war folk, Raimondo's column today is worth a few minutes:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7034

I'm unlikely to finish my "why are we still confused" thread. The quick version of my conclusion is that the notion of a "transformation" of Iraq, much less the middle east, seems as much or more of a pipe dream than it did a year ago. The title of the opposing opinion, "Imperial Hubris", is apt at explaining where we are going wrong: we cannot transform our enemies into allies by killing them. People don't like dying, even for the American cause. Go figure.

Folks, if we want a safer country, we need to kill those who kill us. That means going after the perpetrators of 9/11, which we did, albeit failing to get their leader. When done further harm, we'll paint the target and go after the guilty party.

A safer country doesn't mean occupying other countries that don't pose us a verifiable threat. It doesn't mean standing by your elected leaders when war motive after war motive is debunked, and our soldiers are dying daily for a bizarre and vague cause. It doesn't mean "staying the course" when nobody has any clue what course that is. It doesn't mean invading Iran. And it certainly doesn't mean establishing an Islamic state in place of a secular one (exactly what we are doing). Our own citizens are dying to let it happen, and we want to think we're doing well. Give it a little thought.

The fact is, the instability in Iraq is increasing. The insurgency growing, and in large part native. Discontent is growing from Democrats, Republicans, and most other groups. The anti-war movement isn't a populist one, it's a rational one. The country is on the wrong course, and we started on it when we were convinced by exaggerated intelligence and solemn promises that this war was, indeed, the Last Resort. It was nothing of the kind.

It's time to get out of Iraq. It's time to protest, time to tell friends and families that we don't support the cause, and time to make it clear to our leaders that we don't appreciate being misled. I know that many of you think this is an extreme stance to take. Others think that I'm confused. Some will even argue that the reason for our failure in Iraq actually has something to do with people like me who opposed it. (Talk about deflection! Anything to avoid accepting the consequences of your own hallucinations.) I have asked repeatedly on this blog, from before the war, how long those of you who support this project think it should last. At first, it was the party-line: a year or so. Then, it was long enough for sovereignty to be passed. Later it had something to do with the constitution. Then elections. The ability for Iraqis to defend themselves ... from ... themselves. Your arguments do not wash. The only "stay the course" that has any goal in site is an indefinite one (which, by the way, is exactly what Thomas Barnett proposes): this project is gonna take a century, people. At least. And its outcome will be a bankrupted USA, the least popular country in the world. ("But, at least the Iraqis will have schools and good roads and free health care!" Thank you, Good News Friends. Paid for by the US taxpayer, but provided by Allah.)

9/11 changed people in different ways. Some it made afraid. Others it made angry. Me, it made determined. I don't like the way 9/11 changed things. It significantly lowered our expectations of leaders, of the media, and our whole notion of "war as a last resort". (Well, technically, it made that phrase meaningless.) We were surprised that we weren't protected from 9/11 by our government, but we're not surprised (or don't care) by the ample suspicions surrounding the push to go to war, by the serious omissions of the 9/11 commission, or by our subsequent realization that the mission is, in fact, far from accomplished. In this way 9/11 made cynics out of everyone: we are incompetent, we know this, we are no longer surprised by anybody's failures, we therefore fault no one, we are surprised by nothing. We are numb to the complete incompetency of our leadership. And so long as we're not holding them accountable, we sure as hell won't hold ourselves accountable.

9/11 made "traitors" of those who'd rather not send our men and women to die to "nation-build" a foreign country, including a mom whose son died in the war, and wants to know why. (Anybody care to explain it to her? I didn't think so.) A television station in Utah refuses to air Sheehan ads because it would "disrespect" soldiers who have died. Guess what? Soldiers dying does not in itself lend nobility to the cause. (Even if we know what that cause was, it still wouldn't.) These soldiers have died in service to their country and commander-in-chief. Their sacrifice is not disrespected by bringing the rest home so that they don't die too. It's time to admit the mistake. In truth, most of us who oppose the war oppose it because we like the pre-9/11 USA, and not in the "safer" sense. I want to live in a USA where liberty and justice are the guiding principles, not fervor and illogic, not lethal agendas that are false to begin with. That is how I'm determined.

Of course, war supporters are quickly becoming the minority. This should, in and of itself, cause those who continue to support it to question the feasibility of a regional transformation at the hands of the US military. Republicans won't sacrifice the House, Senate, and White House for an unknown cause in Iraq. This is the good news: Americans still know what is right and what is wrong. (Or, at the least, they won't risk office over it.)

There will always be threats to our country. There will always be people inside it (Oklahoma City) and outside it (9/11) who want to hurt it. Welcome to the world we live in. We can protect ourselves by getting rid of those who have hurt us. We can try and dissuade others from hurting us by peacefully spreading ideals of democracy and capitalism via multilateral sanctions and incentives. We need strong leadership (not "Bushevik" leadership) to take us down this positive road via positive means. But to those who believe that the only way to keep ourselves alive is to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents of a country that did us no harm, and had no ability to do us harm, I say: first, I want no part of it. And second, grow some backbone, stand up straight, let's walk carefully.

NOTE: I'm unlikely to respond to comments. I just don't have time.

RIP, Moog.