  Ahem.  Sorry I'm late for the discussion,  but I had to clean up the small flood in my basement first.  It might not surprise any of you that I have some thoughts about the upcoming conflict and the issues surrounding it.  Let me apologize in advance,  as this is going to be long as crap,
 but bear with me ( I've been thinking a lot about these issues lately -  time is about the only thing my unemployed ass can afford these days)  First,  though,  I have but one word for the way the Bush Administration has handled foreign policy since the collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan:
 Amateurish .  If you don't like that one,  here're some other choices:  sloppy,  slapdash,  clumsy,
 crude,  slipshod,  inept,  bungling,  or incompetent.  The Model UN Conference that I attended in 1992 at Princeton would have produced more elegant diplomacy than that of the leadership of the current administration.
 I have been continuously amazed and dismayed at the ineptitude with which this administration has conducted foreign policy.  Bush II sold his soul ( with the tacit approval of the Republican National Committee)  to the conservatives in 2000 in order to win South Carolina and staunch the grassroots support that was propelling John McCain to the Republican nomination.  Woe to the future of our country as a result,  for the very same conservatives that now have a hotline to the Oval Office (
or perhaps more importantly,  to Carl Rove's office)  and they are giving our reputation as thorough a drubbing as Clinton did back in 92- 93.  The ham- handed and despicably snotty attitude with which this administration has approached the rest of the world has directly lead to the worst crisis in NATO history and an intransigent and increasingly hostile UN.
 I was relieved to see that I wasn't the only one of this opinion last Sunday -  read this article:  Forceful Tactics Catch Up With U. S.  Turns out that the US is only reaping what it was sown over the past 2 years,  starting with our disgraceful behavior re:
 the Kyoto Accord and going downhill from there.  ( Some of you might remember my support for our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty -  mind you,  I still think that we did the right thing -  just in a terribly wrong fashion.
 So,  registering my strong,  nay intense,  disapproval for the manner in which Mr.  Bush II conducts his foreign policy,  let me now tell you why going to war is not only right,
 but in the best interests of the US in the long- run:  lubing the wheels of regime change in Iraq means the difference between John and Johnathan's nightmarish and ultimately impossible proposal of utterly annihilating all extremists in order to live peacefully,  and influencing the world in such a positive manner that extremists will be relegated to John's desert,  where they can do little harm.  But first we must set aside all of the emotional and bleeding heart baggage in order to discuss realpolitik in a form Cardinal Richelieu would immediately recognize and approve.
 So,  let's set aside the fact that war is destructive and killing people is wrong -  that's a given.  Set aside the wrong- headed argument that this is about oil -  1)
 unless you are living in a cabin in the wilderness without electricity and any modern convenience,  you must accept the fact that oil is the lifeblood of our modern society and therefore securing a stable and cheap source incontrovertibly benefits all of us;  and 2)  If oil was on Bush II's mind,  we would invade Venezuela,  whose crisis has posed a more serious oil problem for the United States than Iraq ever could.
 Set aside the fact that this whole thing with Iraq feels like " You beat up on my dad by defying him,  so I'm gonna beat up on you.  -  since the hawks of Bush II's administration were all veterans of Bush I,  we can assume that that certainly had a lot to do with choosing Iraq as the next target after the Taliban folded like a cheap card table.
 Johnathan,  the reason you noticed the link between terrorism and Iraq has been downplayed is because there isn't one.  Regardless of all of these issues,  there are compelling reasons for us to go to war in the desert again.  So let's talk geopolitics:  On the day the war ends (
and I'm not taking a big leap by assuming that we win)  then the entire geopolitics of the region will be redefined .  Every country bordering Iraq will find not the weak formations of the Iraqi army along their frontiers,  but US and British troops.  We will be able to reach into any country in the region with covert forces based in Iraq,  and we could threaten overt interventions as well.
 We will not need permission from regional hosts for the use of facilities,  so long as either Turkey or Kuwait will permit transshipment into Iraq.  In short,  a U. S.  victory will change the entire balance of power in the region,
 from a situation in which the US must negotiate its way to war,  to a situation where we are free to act as we will.  If we consider the post- Iraq war world,  it is no surprise that the regional response ranges from publicly opposed/ privately not displeased to absolute opposition.
 Certainly,  Syria,  Saudi Arabia and Iran ( and Jordan,  to a lesser extent)  have nothing to gain from a war that will be shaped entirely by the United States.
 Kuwait and Turkey are the other countries bordering Iraq,  and they are in the US camp already.  Syria,  Saudi Arabia and Iran have been banking on European resistance to a war to prevent it.  It remains to be seen if that can happen -  personally,
 I think that Bush II will pull the trigger no matter what the UN decides in the end.  And the rest of NATO has already come out in support -  magnifying the split within the European Union between the big nations and the small ( Germany and France vs.  everyone else)  And don't even get me started on my opinions about why France is opposing the war.
 The European split -  and the real possibility that France and Germany ultimately will endorse war in some way in order to reap the not insubstantial benefits of rebuilding Iraq -  mean that war cannot be prevented.  Saddam will not abdicate or be overthrown until the war is well under way.  Therefore,  it is highly likely that the war will take place,
 the US will occupy Iraq,  and that the map of the Middle East will change profoundly.  The Bush II administration is well- aware that its increased presence in the region will result in greater hostility.  However,  we should view this rising cost as acceptable so long as Washington is able to redefine the behavior of countries neighboring Iraq.
 In the long run,  though,  geopolitical power will improve US security interests in spite of growing threats.  To be more precise,  Islamic hostility at a certain level as a given,  and does not regard an increase in that hostility as materially affecting its interests.
 The conquest of Iraq will not be a minor event in history:  It will represent the introduction of a new imperial power to the Middle East and a redefinition of regional geopolitics based on that power.  The US will move from being an outside power influencing events through coalitions,  to a regional power that is able to operate effectively on its own.  Most significant,  countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria will be living in a new and quite unpleasant world.
 And,  perhaps more importantly,  it will offer the opportunity to create a democratic state in the Middle East that actually works.  A place where democracy and capitalism are afforded the opportunity to grow and flourish.  And this,  more than any other reason,
 is why it's important for us replace Saddam by any means necessary.  Because this gets down to the root of the issue,  as JS has urged us to do.  It comes down to this:  Where there is globalization and economic opportunity,  John and Johnathan's extremists are forced into the proverbial desert.
 Where there is economic stagnation and political repression,  and the extremists not only operate in the open,  but they are a powerful force in that society.  So,  rebuilding Iraq a la Germany after WWII is not only good morality,  but it is solid strategic vision.
 If you have the chance,  get your hand on a copy of the 1 March edition of Esquire Magazine.  Inside,  you will find an article written by Thomas Barnett entitled:  " The Pentagon's New Map.
 It Explains Why We're Going To War,  And Why We'll Keep Going To War.  If you cannot find this article,  I have an electronic version I will be glad to email you.  It is very important that everyone reads and understands this new paradigm -  remember that the world is an inherently more dangerous place since the end of the Cold War,
 and this theory goes a long,  long way to help us to understand the situation in the world and our place in it.  Here are the first couple of paragraphs,  which mirror my thoughts exactly:  " Let me tell you why military engagement with Saddam Husseins regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable,
 but good.  When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf,  it will not constitute a settling of old scores,  or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons,  or a distraction in the war on terror.  Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
 That is why the public debate about this war has been so important:  It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age,  namely,  Disconnectedness defines danger.  Saddam Husseins outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world,  from its rule sets,
 its norms,  and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.  The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome:  Either it is great and sweeping the planet,  or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere.  Neither view really works,
 because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments.  Instead,  this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.  Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity,  financial transactions,  liberal media flows,
 and collective security,  and I will show you regions featuring stable governments,  rising standards of living,  and more deaths by suicide than murder.  These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core,  or Core.
 But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent,  and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes,  widespread poverty and disease,  routine mass murder,  and most important the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists.  These parts of the world I call the Non-
Integrating Gap,  or Gap.  Let me know if anyone wants to read the rest of this article  its incredibly enlightening.  So  JS and John  it doesnt have to come down to either/ or.
