I'll tell you the thing that most impressed me about Churchill. It was the fact that after 10 years in the political wilderness, when finally Britain turned to him to lead them out of the disaster the politicians of both parties had gotten Britain into, he takes power and leads without engaging in a political withchunt or recriminations against his predecessors, which he would have been fully entitled to do.

I think we're heading towards a world war, caused in large part by our weakness, just as World War II was caused in large part by the weakness of Britain and France. And I'll tell you, if I'm right on this, I will have a very, very hard time accepting the need to forgive and forget. We get into a world war, where we truly need everyone, and we'll have to fight side by side with people who helped bring the world war into being through their wrongheaded notions and idiotic advocacy. It will be a very bitter cup, indeed, for those of us who saw it coming all the way, but weren't listened to.

I don't know if you guys have been able to withstand the pure gloom I've been radiating on my site, but I'm literally getting myself prepared for the prospective war, physically and mentally. When the levee en masse finally comes, I'll go, I'll fight, and I'll try to do what I can for my country. I can only hope I can gain the perspective that Churchill had when he forgave his political foes and focused only on the task at hand.

If by not throwing around our weight you mean 600,000 plus dead (innocent) Iraqis.

You don't actually believe that 600K figure do you?
FWIW, in the 12 years between Gulf I & Gulf II, Saddam was killing 5000 a month, according to those who wanted sanctions lifted.
Saddam was too much of a threat to ignore, but trying to contain him was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but we can't get rid of him. Got another solution?

I have thought for a couple of years now that the U.S. homeland needs to get hit and hit hard for the partisan wrangling to stop and for the citizenry of our country to join together. It is a sad thought but, what else can one say? Our borders are wide open, our military is fighting under a set of rules that no one (even the French) abide by. In short, the thing is a mess.
My son is in the Navy. He called last night, after the release of the ISG report to ask me if he is now part of the problem or part of the solution...
P.S. Hubby is on a business trip but, I IM'd him your hamster flight breakthrough... I don't think it added to his spirits any... "Darn Robert Llama, murmer, murmer, oorgle, oorgle... Signing off now..."

P.S. Darn you Robert... Why don't you just keep your yap shut about the hamsters. More family discord.

Even if you believe the 600k meme (which I don't), it actually strengthens my point. We wanted to topple Saddam, but we didn't want to look like an imperialist occupying force. So rather than seizing and holding absolute control under our own set of rules first, we've been hustling up the reestablishment of Iraqi control and trying to keep a relatively low profile ourselves. Meanwhile, the country hemmorages. How many fewer casualties would there have been had we utterly crushed the opposition up front? And how much more credibility (read: fear) in the eyes of our enemies?

But as I say, shoulda woulda coulda.

Even if you believe the 600k meme (which I don't)

If by meme you mean carefully performed, scientifically grounded survey using strategies universally accepted by those in the epidemiology field and published in a respected, peer reviewed journal. Better to believe government estimates from an administration that openly stated they don't do body counts.

So rather than seizing and holding absolute control under our own set of rules first

Frankly Robert this is a fantasy scenario. I am admittedly, profoundly anti-war so there are very few situations which I think justify war, but if Vietnam proved anything, it proved you can bomb a country into the stone age and never gain control if the people don't want you there. From the beginning of the Iraq invasion, the polls showed that the Iraqis didn't want us there. There was no way this was ever going to work.

Wasn't the 600K number first published in The Lancet? Which is a generally respected publication, but isn't peer reviewed? And wasn't that number at least twice even the worst estimates? Seems unlikely to me.

Regardless, I think the more likely first nuke strike is Israel, not the US. Whether or not that's enough for various groups to wake up, who knows.

The Lancet is peer reviewed.

I seem to recall that even those boot-stomping Chimpy McHitler mouthpieces over at the NYTimes had doubts about both the methodology and the figures.

Owlish - excellent points both about Israel being the likely first target and the open question of whether such an attack would rouse us to do anything, and I had meant to make them both. Thanks.

To me, the Lancet lost all credibility with its first article on Iraqi deaths. That was the 100,000 deaths claim (again way in excess of other anti-war activists' claims), not peer reviewed and rushed to coincide right before the 2004 election.

The 2004 study was peer reviewed. The Lancet does not publish non-peer reviewed scientific papers.

As soon as the NYT publishes it's counter-findings in Lancet or elsewhere, I will take their objections seriously. Based on MSM coverage of science topics I have direct knowledge of, the coverage of science is abysmal and ill informed.

I found Seixon's criticism of the Lancet study to be pretty convincing.

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/12/death_of_statis_1.html

Sure Sexion's criticism sounds convincing in a vacuum, but science doesn't work that way. His post was not submitted to epidemiologists (I'm assuming he is not one himself) for peer review, the authors were not given a chance to rebut, and it is very possible (I have no way to know one way or another) much of what he is saying is factually untrue. For one instance, I know that in the 2004 study actually excluded Fallujah, even though it was initially selected in the random assignments, for fear that it might distort the findings artificially high. This is why science papers are not published on blogs. There is a much, much higher bar to pass for publication in scientific journals. As it stands, I have no way to know how credible or not this blog post is. I do know that the JHU studies are the only real attempt to scientifically determine the true cost of the war in lives. All other numbers that have been produced are laughable either because their sources are not based on any scientific approach (US or Iraqi gov. numbers for example) or are overly cautious (Iraqi Body Count).

I'm willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the study is correct, and 600,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war, I still have a few questions for LB Buddy regarding his comment:

1. How do you know all 600,000 dead are innocent? How do you know that that number doesn't include insurgent dead, since the insurgents put so much effort into NOT looking like members of an army?

2. How do you know what percentage 600,000 of those deaths are directly caused by the war itself, and how many are the normal number of deaths expected in the population for that time period?

3. Assuming that the overwhelming per5centage of those deaths are as a direct result of the war... well, there's no polite way of putting this -- so what? Is there some significance to the exact numer? Are we supposed to be stunned by its general large number? You say you are "admittedly, profoundly anti-war", and that "there are very few situations which [you] think justify war," so I have to wonder what the big deal about the accuracy of a specific number of casualties are. If the war is justified, what is the specific significance of 600,000 deaths (innocent or not)? Is there some formula, some algorithm, of which I'm unaware, that tells me how many deaths are justified based on the casus belli? if the death toll had been 500,000, would it have been justified? If not, how many? 200,000? 125,362? 42? But if you view the war as unjust (as you have stated you do), 1 death is outrageous, and all this straining at gnats over how accurate the number 600,000 is is a non sequitur.

4. Since you opposed the war, what was your better idea? I'm asking that, of course, under the assumption that you actually think something NEEDED to be done. After all, "at least the trains ran on time", and there was no unsurgency/civil war in Iraq. Never mind any atrocities and oppression Saddam was subjecting Iraqis to.

But if, like most leftists, you offer up the platitude "Saddam was bad, but war wasn't the answer", then what? Lift the embargo and hope he has a sudden change of heart? Continue padding Kofi's sons pocket with bribes from an oil-for-food program that was broken? What? How?