There is absolutely no question in my mind that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. Constant appeals by the administration to the emotions of the American people, whether they play on the fears about our safety or our pity towards oppressed citizens in Iraq, have served to effectively shore up support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But slowly the truth has been coming out, a truth that has been clear to many of us since day one. Saddam had NO links to 9/11, Saddam had no nuclear weapons program, the war is going to be costly and prolonged, the Iraqi people are not glad we're there, and the American people are not safer. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any claim from the chickenhawks that turned out to be true, other than the fact that we toppled the Iraqi government swiftly.

So Iraq is definitely a cluster fuck. And Democrats have found a great talking point to bring to the American people. I am by no means opposed to people on the left making hay of this issue. It's vitally important that Americans realize how bad a decision this was, and anything that will unseat our current leader is welcome.

Democrats are split on the issue. Some think all of our troops need to come home now, some think we need to stick it out until the end, and some believe that we need to establish a multilateral presence. I agree with the latter.

Backing our troops out of Iraq now would leave a situation worse than the one we're in. All of our efforts would be for nothing. The United States needs to relinquish control of the region and bring in International troops so that the ordinary people of Iraq can be safe from radicals and looters. The utility infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, and the conditions of hospitals need to be improved. None of this can be accomplshed without help and without a continued presence.

If we manage to get the UN involved, a significant number of our troops can come home. Much of the military operation has been finished, and most of the violence comes from small groups of guerillas. The hardest part, reconstruction, is under way. Reconstruction is a noble effort after a despicable war that served no immediate purpose. Even if you are against war, or against THIS war, you have to understand that rebuilding is different from war, and we have a responsoibility to help clean up the mess we made.

The wrong thing to do? I won't argue timing, or even motivation; indeed, the Bush administration's ridiculous assertions about Hussein are as faulty as the foundation (and, indeed, establishment) of the current administration itself. But was removing a dangerous despot from power wrong? Crying about the intiation of the war is, sadly, making the Democratic party look petty, and they can't afford that.

I think the real issue here is the arrogance of the American government as a whole, believing that Iraq would welcome American democracy. They don't want WalMart and McDonald's. They don't want our way of life, a social structure and belief system that they have been taught, nay conditioned, to believe is fundamentally wrong. It would be as if we had lost the Cold War and the American people were then expected to embrace Communism; it wouldn't have happened, because we have been taught our whole lives that Communism is wrong (well, those of us old enough to remember the Cold War, at any rate).

But cultural differences aside, the biggest problem is reconstruction, agreed. We need a strong program to be developed with the UN, not us directing the UN. This will not be as easy as you make it sound, however; nor will unseating Bush be the ultimate answer.

One of the biggest challenges we will have to face in this is our nature itself. We experience a regime change every 4 or 8 years, not to mention regime shifts every couple of years. Now granted, historically the term "Bush administration" is synonymous with "single term", but if Bush leaves office without setting something into motion, we will likely go through a prolonged period of time where we have no official policy on how to rebuild Iraq. Money will be frozen and promises will be broken as a new administration takes power and settles in, getting the hang of the office and starting to debating how they will approach this problem (don't believe me? Read up on Albright's deals with North Korea under the Clinton administration, and took a look at the problems with that nation now). Meanwhile, people will be starving and life will be chaotic in Iraq, and people will be looking to anyone who can end their strife; remember that this is how the Taliban eventually took control of Afghanistan (essentially; it was, as it always is, a tad bit more complicated than that, as you well know). We can't afford that, and that is one thing that the democrats need to wake up to: any candidate that wishes to become president must have a thorough plan for Iraq mapped out before taking office, a plan that works and will make a smooth transition from the current Bush administration's actions between now and the start of 2005. Whatever that plan is, Iraq and the world cannot afford for the slightest pause in progress, as that could end up spelling ruin for their nation, as well as numerous volatile problems in the region.

We can't keep one administration in charge long enough to get anything done at home; how the hell are we going to rebuild a foreign nation whose culture fundamentally despises the very ideals we are trying to forcibly instill? It's a tricky situation, and one that leaves us pretty much damned whatever we do. I do agree with your final point, that we have a responsibility to clean up the messes we've made, so this is my appeal to whoever, be it Bush or a newcomer, takes office in early 2005: we owe the world. We must continue to push for and support the installation of peaceful and culturally accepted governments being set up and maintained in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Yugoslavia (yeah, remember Kosovo?); and by "we" I mean the world at large, not just the US. Good luck. You're gonna need it.