Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..


As for the question of war, the single greatest factor that most
commentators are overlooking is that the paradigm of war has changed
dramatically. The enemy is not a traditional national actor any more,
but rather a far-reaching network of terrorist agencies that don't
wear uniforms, muster under a national flag or operate within the
constraints of international law or conventional diplomacy. Once that
fact is appreciated, then it becomes a bit more difficult to apply the
conventional rules of justification for war and definition of combat
areas.

But it also makes it even harder to justify a pre-emptive war
against a nation that is nor harboring or supporting the paramilitary
group that attacked the US and especially so considering that the
leadership of that group is still at large and not in Iraq.


Add to the changed paradigm the incredible potential for destruction
of WMD and the removal of the foundation of one of the basic
principles of deterrence, that of rational leadership on both sides of
the deterrent equation, and you've provided a strong justification for
a policy of pre-emption.


Yes again, but again you don't pre-empt tem by fighting somebody else.

The invasion of Iraq has cost us the support of
most of our allies, it has sapped our military strength and budget,
has created yet another haven for our worst enemies who previously
had been conspicuously absent from Iraq, and has inspired recruitment
to the ranks of our enemies.

--

FF