Some wars are worth it. As they are forced or truly inevitable. WWII comes to mind.

But the vulgar nationalists of course think otherwise.

Not a pacifist myself, just want to keep on with the idea that it shouldn't be glibly or meaninglessly or incompetently done; big price tag.

And there's always a vulgar nationalist to make it happen. WWII owes its genesis to vulgar nationalists.

Even World War II is a hideously complicated creature--in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, especially. There are still hissy fits in places like the Baltic states or Croatia over their nationalist heroes, who volunteered to serve en masse--perhaps, from their perspective, for the "right reasons"--on the side of the Germans. Key pro-independence leaders in Burma (Aung San), Indonesia (Sukarno), and India (Subhas Chandra Bose) were all allies of Japan--who were themselves very ambiguous (in all sincerity--at least some of their people) about wanting to "free" Asians from Western imperialism.

Personally, because World War II seems so morally right from our comfortable Western--read U.S.-- perspective, we forget how complex it was elsewhere in the world--especially where the Allies were not exactly fighting for democracy or freedom, and where the locals had no obvious reason to favor us over "them." I sometimes wonder this is why we in the States are so blind to the various screw-ups in faraways places.

Nastiest title pun so far.

For Kao, I'd like to volunteer Finland, the Balkans and just about everyeone else who were sandwiched between Stalin and Hitler. You had to fight on ONE of the sides. (At least.)

And then of course, this being `Aqoul, much of the Arab world comes to mind: from the sleazier pro-Nazi types like Palestine's Husseini, to the more anti-British than pro-German trembles elsewhere during the war, to those many who bit the bullet and went to war to save their colonizer. No easy choices there.

You had to fight on ONE of the sides

Or you could do both, like Romania and Italy. Wonder how Sweden managed to stay neutral, I guess they were not necessary to invade like Norway, or in the way like Holland. There recently was some heated discussion in the Swedish press about war profiteering and heavy industry collaboration with Nazi-Germany, but not something I followed in particular.

It is often argued WWII caused the end of colonialism, if not for moral reasons, then because European powers were so weakened by the war. I don't quite know how communist imperialism fits into that though.

regarding the post, it's curious how one of the few latin phrases I know is Pro patria mori dulce et decorum est.

klaus - Wonder how Sweden managed to stay neutral, I guess they were not necessary to invade like Norway, or in the way like Holland.

Well, we were in the way when Hitler wanted to shift his divisions east from Norway to the Finnish front. But then we opened our railroads to German troop transports, and waved them right through. I suppose it would've been sort of an anticlimax to invade us after that. And in the end, it seems some last, sorry shred of dignity prevented us from declaring war on Germany in the spring of 1945.

So, I repeat, how one stays neutral in a world war: one whores.

This is actually a great Hugh Hewitt interview. From Glenn Greenwald, who's been on fire since his move to Salon. Odom slams Hewitt's BS again and again, with fact-based pragmatic reasoning. Straight talk and a classic case of retirement balls. Sad that sec defs can't get a no-confidence vote from the military itself, the US Army must be fuming.

Now this is classic:

HH: Here’s John Burns on that subject from last week.

JB: ". . . You take the American troops away in this situation, leaving Shiite death squads to move into Adamiya in force, without any kind of protection, . . . it won’t be 3,700 dead in the month, it will be 3,700 dead in the night in Adamiya. Now that may be an exaggeration, but it reflects the kind of fears that are quite widespread . . . ."

HH: So General, should we be indifferent to that?

WO: Yes.

Tragically, he's fundamentally right.

in my mind it's a pro vs (neo)con debate on troop withdrawal. Is it worth a few more thousand dead US soldiers to bury neocons completely and salt the earth where they lie? Is it worth having Bush having his way for yet another two years to discredit him completely, depending on how much more damage he's going to do in those two years? Iran comes to mind. It's like, well, at least that Hitler guy made racism a bad thing, which it wasn't before.

This debate, of course, is quite different to those that actually have friends or relatives serving overseas.

matthew - Tragically, he's fundamentally right.

No, he's not. And I don't think he's right in arguing for complete, immediate (six-month) withdrawal either. His main arguments are that the US can't make anything better by now, and that it's wrong to argue for staying, when going in was what caused the problems in the first place.

The first argument is wrong, and the other one completely beside the point:

(1) of course the US can make a difference, for better or for worse. For one thing, all-out genocide is certainly a possibility in Iraq, that the US can prevent or delay. It can also help affect any deals made over the country, and ensure that it stays the major partner as neighbouring countries are sucked in. Gen. Odom's portrayal of a completely impotent US army is far off the mark. Even if the US can no longer shape what is being built in Iraq, it can still destroy anything it does NOT want to see built. Everybody in the region knows this, and while it's nicer being loved, if that's out of the picture, then being feared is a good number two.

(2) Of course the US brought its Iraq disaster upon itself. And that should be dynamited ad notam into the forehead of Washington on Mt. Rushmore, because if not, it'll be forgotten in five years. But it doesn't follow from this, that the US should now act as if it hadn't invaded Iraq, pull out and "start over". That's a funhouse mirror of political realism.

Instead you take a long hard look at the present mess, accept the fact that you are, unfortunately, in Iraq, and deal with it from there. Like the Baker group, I'm inclined to think that some sort of withdrawal "over the horizon", with slightly more discreet and less costly meddling from now on, is the best move right available. Events will then determine how long that is sustainable, and if it will be the first step out of Iraq altogether, or if it actually helps secure some footing. I lean towards thinking it will be the first step in a strategy of managed defeat and total withdrawal. Either way, it is a form of damage control that keeps some options open and tries to steer the debacle towards an emergency landing; perhaps you will then need to parachute out, but there's still some precious time to try and keep your passengers alive.

(Still, gotta love the general when he snarls "you know, I’d flunk you on a sophomore international relations course" at Hewitt...)

all-out genocide is certainly a possibility in Iraq

Apart from the debate on what the definition of genocide is, I think one still needs an army to carry one out. A real genocide, not just ethnic purges. Right now Iraq is a militia-run nation, and those are really only good for defense. Baghdad will be ugly though.

Gen. Odom's portrayal of a completely impotent US army is far off the mark.

I think he's thinking of the geopolitical stage rather: 'We are diplomatically and strategically paralyzed in Iraq.' Which may not be such a bad thing, otherwise the bombs would be raining on Iran by now. And that's the stumbling block that all sensible propositions encounter: Bush. alle may talk of an ISG super-base-building gradual withdrawal as opposed to Odom's 'as fast as possible', but Bush has politely shown ISG the door. And Bush cannot be impeached with the GOP backing his presidency still. So, to borrow a Lounsbury phrase, it's all fucked in a cocked hat.