Keith Devens .com

I'll sidestep the whole rat analogy, which is a really poor analogy and in bad taste.

Not everyone disagrees with the logic of invading Iraq. Plenty of people are merely unhappy with the way it was executed.

It takes real guts to be mavericks and charge into Iraq largely alone. Score +1 for W. It takes major hubris and incompetence to falter at something SO critical to our security in the future. Score -10 for W.

Lot's of worthy things appear "doable", but actually require near-perfect execution and good fortune for it to work out. As a programmer, you've probably learned the hard way how seductive some theories are. But if you could factor in those variables into the original equation, they wouldn't appear any where near as "doable" as when you first envisioned. It takes wisdom and experience to judge the difference.

which is a really poor analogy and in bad taste

It could be a poor analogy, but I have no problem comparing terrorists to rats

I think your pessimism assumes that Iraq is going too badly. I don't think it is. If Bush is re-elected and we stay the course, and Iraq has successful elections, everything will turn out well, God willing. In past wars we've faced much greater setbacks and had much worse mistakes than anything we've had in Iraq. Personally, I see no reason for pessimism (unless Kerry is elected).

If you live in a house of rats, you remove the rats that are in your house.... and you improve the border control.

But what you DON'T do is to go after the extinction of all rats in the universe...

>But what you DON'T do is to go after the extinction of all rats in the universe...

The problem with discussing via analogy, is that you end up discussing the limits of the analogy instead of the actual point at hand.

Perhaps you should get democracy working in your own country before pushing it on others.

Heh, what does that even mean?

The rat analogy is disturbing to me. It's a way of thinking that dehumanizes, and represents a slippery slope toward statements to justify the large-scale killing or internment of ethnic/ideological groups. If they're harboring combatants, they are supporting terrorists, and if they are terrorists they're not human, so let's call in air support to bomb these coordinates...

Elections will probably come to pass in January, which is mostly a good thing. But is this victory? There were cries of victory after Baghdad fell, when major war operations were declared over, when Saddam was caught, when Bremer transferred power to a sovereign Iraq, and now as we prepare for Iraqi elections. With all this victory one might think Iraq is a rags to riches story, when there's compelling evidence that it is drifting toward becoming the next Lebanon.

Not many good examples in history where a conventional-style occupying force outlasts a popular local guerrilla movement.

Lots of small victories. We won't be done there after elections, but that's a major step. Also, the "insurgency" is not a popular movement, which is why it will be defeated.

Adam V: Yes.... which shows that the original analogy wasn't any good picture of the situation. Because it could just as well be made into a picture where Kerry and Clinton are right about what they say about the situation.

And about the issue itself. I think Kerry and Clinton are right. It is a problem that should be viewed more as a "nuisance" than a declaration of war. I know "nuisance" is the wrong word, because it kind of sounds like the whole issue is just a bagatelle. But the concept of what Kerry and Clinton is right. It is a serious issue, but it ought to be treated in a way where you work on it more as a part of other types of international crime, and not as someone declaring war upon you.

Clinton treated it as a nuisance and it culminated in the WTC bombings. While having embasassies and military targets of ours attacked overseas may seem like a "nuissance", I'm surprised such a spectacular attack on civilians on our own soil didn't bring things into focus for more people.

On the other hand, Clinton managed to make some of the only progress in Bosnia by deciding to send in the bombers, this after years and years of UN ineffectualness.

Dealing with crime is very much reactionary. We can NO LONGER be reactionary in fighting terror. There is plenty of fault to be found with Bush (why oh why is Fallujah still standing?), but the thought of Kerry's (confusingly) voiced foreign policy churns my stomach.

What's Kerry going to do now there's strong proof Osama is still alive? Serve him with papers? Send Interpol to Pakistan?

That there IS NO INTERNATIONAL LAW. The concept of law in a society depends VERY MUCH on a strong set of shared values. I'm not sure why people expect to find this in the UN, an organization that feels the need to condemn Israel's defense wall, but has stayed silent all these years on Palestinian suicide bombers.

What's Kerry going to do now there's strong proof Osama is still alive? "Serve him with papers? Send Interpol to Pakistan?"

Which is more than Bush would do, which he has stated on record twice that he doesn't care where he is, and doesn't even think about him.