"his administration did not start the war on terror, and does not like it or the prospect of its long duration one bit." Holy shmoly, what channels of information are you tapping? Iraq had nothing substantial to do with Al Qaeda, and George Bush is pleased as punch to be a “War President”.

"One could build an impressive cultural case about Arab civilization and acting strong." If one ignores the inherent fact of honor as a driving motive in Arab culture, one could. But, that technique of making an argument based on ignoring other important facts is part and parcel of partisan dialectical logic. The Left does and the Right does it. Ever wonder how the communists made such ridiculous 5 year plans and tragic policies? Just that type of thinking. Think American Conservatives are immune to it because of what, they’re the guys in the white hats? Ever wonder why the stupidity of WMD reasoning? Now you know.

"But Korea was wierd - altough a Japanese colony" The Russian/Soviet Empire moved in, is all, and that resulted in the partitiion.

"Policy at the top influenced the prison only in a indirect sense:" Good enough for the rest of the world to be dubious about the present administration. And More than good enough for the Arabs.

"Policy and attitude from the top influenced Abu Ghraib. For internal political reasons we have the propaganda that it was a “few” morally challenged individuals." Riiight. And so the Civil War of the US was wrong and invalid because of the systemic mistreatment of POW then? Was WW2 invalid becuase of 'morally challenged' soldiers in that conflict? The logic and morality of a conflict is decided when one decides to go to war, and not by incidents that occur during the war. The Boer War was wrong because it was unbridled colonialism, and not because it brought about the concentration camp. Over simplification seems to be in play here in your logic brook. If you have proof, and yes, I mean proof and not just unnamed sources for the NY Times or the Gausrdian(UK), of these assertions of mentality or attitude then fine, I'll stand corrected. But, unless you're a mind reader this is hyperbole, "Policy and attitude from the top influenced Abu Ghraib. For internal political reasons we have the propaganda that it was a “few” morally challenged individuals."//

"If you have proof, and yes, I mean proof and not just unnamed sources for the NY Times or the Gausrdian(UK), of these assertions of mentality or attitude then fine..." Proof? Of attitude? That's funny, especially when you exclude the organs of mass communication that transmit a political/social attitude. Thanks for the laugh.

I usually say "Bah!" and wave my hand in a guards-take-her-away motion when I read a Friedman article, but even a stopped calendar is right every 14 years.

We were in a state of war with Iraq already, and had been for 12 years, paused only by a cease-fire that was conditioned upon compliance with UN resolutions. Iraq fired upon US and British planes in the no-fly zones daily. Not only was Iraq not complying with UN resolutions, it wasn't even complying with the cease-fire itself.

We are fighting all terrorist organizations, not just Al Qaeda. Terrorism is just the symptom. The disease is Islam's and especially Arab failure to confront and stop militant Islam. But after September 11th we realized the threat that it was and that the old way would no longer work. We have been at war since 1979, an undeclared and unrealized war but war just the same. And Iraq is the first major step in the process to bring reform to the middle east.

"We are fighting all terrorist organizations, not just Al Qaeda..." Sure, but that doesn't mean you pick a fight that drains you from more important fights. Biggest terrorist of all time? Stalin. Strategy for defeating Stalin? Containment. Iraq was contained, all the other statements that say it wasn't are disproven by facts. The one thing we can say about the Iraq invasion is that it has provided the proof for that.