I posted this on Moneybox this morning, but it was buried deep in one of the many threads that one of many responses to an editorial splintered into. I doubt whether anybody except the one poster I was having an exchange with will ever notice it. So, I decided to repost here:

It keeps slipping by everybody, but there is no war in Iraq! Either of two arguments are sufficient to prove this:

1. It was demonstrated that we entered Iraq without any legitimate reason. The WMD were non-existent. The ties between Iraq and Al Quaida were non-existent. There was no plot by Iraq against the US. We entered Iraq by mistake and should have pulled out as soon as that became evident and paid them reparations for any damage done to them.
2. The "war" was against the nation of Iraq. When the Iraqi military disbanded and fled and when the govenrment of Iraq also fled, it was apparent that war, regardless of whether it was justified or not, was over. The US essentially declared victory ("Mission Accomplished") and installed an interim government. There is now a new Iraqi military and a new Iraqi government, both largely the product of the US. It is illogical to think that the war we started could still be going on.

We have a large number of troops which are deliberately being placed in harm's way in Iraq so that there will be "evidence" that we are still at war. The fact is that there is a multi-sided civil war in Iraq between the major sects and between the cohorts of numerous warlords and we do not figure into any of these animosities, except for being in the way.

In the case of Afghanistan, the story is different but the idea that we are at war with Afghanistan is equally contrived. The WTC in New York was attacked by 20 religious fundamentalists who did not represent a widely held view in their own base religion. 19 of them died in the attack while another, who apparently didn't make it to the attack was captured later. This left the US with no way of immediately getting even. We determined (accurately, I would judge) that the spiritual leader of this sect and the sponsor of the mission was Osama Bin Laden, who was known to be "somewhere" in Afghanistan, although he had the run of a number of countries. He had a following which probably numbered in the hundreds at the time in Afghanistan. That country was ruled by an apparently non-indigenous fundamentalist sect, which was different from but similar in its philosophy of religious doctrine to Al Quaida. The US demanded that the Taliban turn over the members of Al Quaida to the US. The Taliban, as the government of that country, demurred and the US judged that to be such a heinous affront to the US as to warrant an invasion of their country. We started of with a relatively small contingent of Special Forces, which seemed to be reasonably well received by the Afghanistanis as a whole since they were not terribly supportive of the extremist Taliban. Eventually, the US increased its forces in Afghanistan and popular opinion there turned away from the US and toward the two fundamentalist elements: Al Quaida and the Taliban. At that point, the nation was fracture into two groups: one which supported the fundamentalists and one which opposed them. We chose to remain and fight against all those Afghans who did not support the US. Again, we created a government and something of a military there, although it seems to be much less developed than the Iraqi army. In any case, this support by us for one of the two factions has been recast into a war, as if we were defending the US from an impending attack by Afghanistan - which would presumably be carried out on horseback since that is the extent of the armed forces on all sides of the internal battle. This, like the action in Iraq, is in no way a war withing the commonly accepted image of what a war is and we could easily leave the field of battle and allow the Afghans to sort it out for themselves.

In reply to some comments about the above from DBuss, I posted the following:

My point was more limited in scope than your reply. I just wanted to make the point that there is no "war" in Iraq, or in Afghanistan for that matter, and that is disingenuous to insist that one exists and that we are fighting for anything that resembles the basis of a real war. If our purpose is, as you infer, peacekeeping, then we need to question whether this warrents the huge investment we have made, in time, in money, and in blood in bringing it about. We should also question whether we are the best suited for bringing it about.

Perhaps the surrounding countries, which between them practice the religions of essentially all of the Iraqis (and we have to remember that the current disputes - which were held in check by Saddam - are religious differences) and might be in the best position to support their peace, rather than their war. The best idea I can muster, given the apparent bitter disagreements between factors of what appears from the outside to be one religion (it might best be compared by the bitter warfare between Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants, who would all be considered simply as Christians by non-Christians), is that Iraq be partitioned, on the basis of religion, into three groups (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, who are mostly Sunni but somehow "different") and merged into the most appropriate surrounding nations.

As to oil, there are several points to keep in mind: First, it is not our oil, it is their oil! Second, although they obviously ought to be able to do with it as they wish, the only likely thing they would do with it is to sell it on the world market. This holds true whether we march our troops up and down their country or not, and may even be more true without our interference than with it.

As to the issue of disposing of Saddam (who was very much a creation of US foreign interference - pardon, we usually call it "foreign policy"), it seems to me that, in a region rife with willing suicide bombers, it could have been accomplished without any physical presence of US troops or weapons at all. The question, of course, is whether the one man who has shown himself capable of holding that country together should have been removed in the first place. It was that ability that occasioned our support for many years and it is not apparent to me that the number of people he killed was anything like the number that are being killed without him. Certainly, the Iraqis suffered more from US-lead sanctions than from anything he did. However, there is probably enough uncertainty in whether removing Saddam was, overall, a good thing or a bad thing that the issue will be raised for years to come.

DBuss, of course, replied to the previous post, saying "The situation exists because we sent in troops to take over. Having done that it's disingenuous to say 'this isn't what we wanted' and to leave and let other people pay the bill."

I, naturally, couldn't leave his responses unchallenged and so I posted this:

I see that you agree with me at least to the extent that you call it a "situation" because you know it is not a war. What we should have done, early on, and will eventually do at far greater cost sooner or later, is precisely to admit that this isn't what we wanted, and pull out. As to letting other people pay the bill - I feel we are morally obliged to pay the bill ourselves.

You mention 9-11, as Bush often did, to try to form, in people's minds, some relationship between Saddam and Al Quaida. The only relationship I can think of is that Saddam was diligent in opposing them and keeping them out of Iraq. That a relationship between 9-11 and Iraq was ever drawn is part of the amoral mystique of politics. Some in the US wanted revenge, even though the perpretrators were dead, and they demanded (after enough coaxing and coaching) that Iraq was a good target. Interestingly, the Bush administration had been planning an attack on Iraq long before 9-11 and was only waiting for some excuse. Do you not see the theatrical connection between 9-11 and "Shock and Awe"? Rumsfeld beamed when he talked of the upcoming demonstration of firepower. [That was the same Rumsfeld who most likely supplied the Iraqis with the chemical weapons they used against Iranian forces.] The US invasion of Iraq took only weeks and, whether it was a legitimate war or not, it was over when both the Iraqi military and the Iraqi government cut and ran. That was probably the most logical time for us to have stepped away from this erroneous war.

I doubt we will ever be able to sort truth from fiction about Saddam Hussein. He certainly didn't seem to get much negative US press until he stopped being a useful client. The fact that he was tried and executed with such rapidity kept him from ever being interveiwed by the world press. I think his media personna has to be examined with some reference to the way Emperor Hirohito (Japan) was treated during WW2 and in the years to follow. He was depicted as a thoroughly evil person throughout the war and somehow cleansed of all blame when the US subsequently desired Japanese support and naval bases.

International relations, because so much is hidden from public view and so much is manipulated to support the muse of the moment, it is difficult to ever look back at some event and clearly judge it. The invasion of Iraq will be another of those cases, probably forever.

You have a decent statement of tactical details. If only that were the full truth.

The world is at WAR. Resources are the key prize. China has 1.3 Billion people for whom their government seeks development and proof that their "ideology" is best for the world. The 1.5 Billion Muslims are united in their "Ummah," which is fractured by competing warlords, dictators, sheiks, and Imams. It is funny to me that Chasidic Jews have almost identical power dynamics. Note that the Pashtuns or Pathans are said by prominent scholars to be some of The Ten Lost Tribes, practicing a form of Islam close to Biblical Judaism, with Hebrew family names and Jewish rituals and amulets.

In the WAR, USA seeks to call the shots and Americanize other countries a la the Marshall Plan. In the same WAR, bin Laden seeks to Muslimize the world and murder those who resist. In that model, bin Laden seeks A-bombs and plans to use them.

Today's NYT Magazine has a good article about how the Afgh War involves Pakistan. They describe murderous tribal groups trying to lead the largely illiterate rabbles but often killing tribal rivals.

It seems though that the rabbles already dominate and have captured city-regions in Pakistan. They also receive support from Pakistan's Army and Intelligence, who use the tribal threat to elicit money from USA. BUT there is a serious risk that the game in Pakistan will go beyond its Army's ability to control -- giving Pakistan to bin Laden and his band of fanatics.

I don't want to go on with this post. The basic error you make is to overlook that much of the WAR is non-rational -- whereas USA people (like you) interpret the world as controllable via rationality. It isn't. The human species has warlike instincts visible inside USA in high-crime areas, but also visible in politics, sports, business -- and in our vast multiple armed forces and police.

Our species has been thrust into a new era of fighting for resources because we have overbred and consumed everything to the point of poisoning our (rats)nests. This situation is way beyond calling on police to arrest or keep out the criminals. Expect the WAR to spread and change everything. It will be coming soon to a theater nearer and nearer to you.

Our efforts in Iraq, Afgh, and Pakistan are just early steps in the overall non-rational process. I'd suggest we TRY to get out of Iraq inside a month, to see what happens. But that answers nothing about al Qaeda or Pakistan or Iran or nearby Georgia or Russia, nor murders of many Christians in India, nor Global warming, nor $4 gasoline, nor pollution nor water shortages in California nor Mexicans invading nor Cuba nor Africa nor Haiti under floodwaters.

You just don't want to remember that YOU got very lucky when your forebears escaped from Lithuania. So you can go around thinking like a suburban engineer and resenting reminders that mankind is only 20% at all like that. Maybe 50% of the species are close to savagery. And even "we" have a form of savagery as we try to control and dominate "them."

Then there are the limits imposed by Nature.

How's Yellowstone?? San Andreas??

We just haven't been rational about responding to the non-rational. Hence religions persist and make things worse.

Do you suppose that, rather than repeating the chaos and vindictiveness which has come of trying to define the word "Marriage", you come up with some new word and leave "WAR", which has a perfectly well know definition, alone? I would suggest "Combativeness", but it probably is lacking in dramatic impact. How about "Conanism"?

It's kind of the Hobbesian state of nature with murderous explosions, fumes, fires, chaos, destruction, armies marching, starvation, cowering victims, armies training, armies hiding and feigning religious piety, and the rich well-protected while the poor freeze in winter's immobility without fuel for heat.

Note how the UN has done almost nothing about bin Laden or resource contention.

Sovereign: It's kind of the Hobbesian state of nature with murderous explosions, fumes, fires, chaos, destruction, armies marching, starvation, cowering victims, armies training, armies hiding and feigning religious piety, and the rich well-protected while the poor freeze in winter's immobility without fuel for heat.

Fyodor Dostoevsky: He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves to be so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions, so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and people went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand each other. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations and famines. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices."

From Crime and Punishment

Your passage was good. Dostoyevski's was better, though.