[Cacophonous]

If we do nothing, the Jihadis are not going to leave us alone.

Now you are starting to make sense.

If I read you correctly, you are advocating ridding the world of the radical ragheads -- the Jihadists -- because, among other things, their culture and values irreconcilably clash with our (Western) culture and values. Or if we don't rid the world of them, at least keep them squashed.

That's fine. I have no problem with that. I have no love for any of them. That would be an effort with a clearly defined goal, and a quantifiable endpoint. If that's the case, drive on.

But that is not what we are doing. If that were the case, we wouldn't be screwing around with this UN inspection process BS, we wouldn't be trying to cozy up to all the other Arab nations...we would bomb until we are done. This whole nonsense of a "War on Terror" would not apply. We wouldn't be concerned with "terrorists", a bunch that includes Arabs, Irishmen, South Americans, American eco-terrorist tree-hugger sorts, a bunch of whackoes throughout the far east...an endless (and that's the problem) list of unfriendlies.

We would be concerned with Arabs, a far more finite set. And easy to identify.

This nonsense about establishing "democracy" in a region that is stuck in the 6th Century, and that cannot -- religiously, culturally or mentally-- handle anything like self-rule is doomed. So the way to do it is to eradicate the culture. Fine by me.

But we won't do that. Our leaders are tied to political correctness and the UN, and lack the cojones to break away (and I mean every leader since Woodrow Wilson, with the possible exception of Reagan, and draw no distinction in the parties).

It's funny: even those claiming to be Conservatives, and who rightly scorn the UN, are using the very processes by the very organization they scorn as the hammer. Where is the consistency?

In other words, we don't know why we are fighting, who we are fighting, or when we will be done. Kinda like Vietnam.

Another acceptable reason is to get "stuff"--oil, the water rights that Iraq controls for the region...things to increase our wealth. I would have no problem with that. But we're not doing that either.

[gridlock]

We differ on the ultimate end-point.

I would not advocate eradication of the culture. Those days are gone. Not really practical, anyway, to kill that many people.

Our best hope is to develop self-governing liberal democracies in the region. I agree that the "raw material" is poor, and the people are ill-equipped to deal with modern self-rule. The process will be long. But do we have any choice, really?

As for pussy-footing with the UN, I chalk that up to playing the games that let us do what we need to do. Due to an accident of history, we have the authority we need to invade and conquer Iraq. As far as I can see, that is the only reason we are there rather than, say, Syria.

But when the time comes, I'm pretty sure somebody will volunteer to be next.