I was going to post an article from an embedded journalist on the front
page of this morning's NYTimes. It's called "Barrage of Fire, Trail of
Death in the Capital," and it could make angels weep, whatever their
politics, but I realize that the arguments about the war are, at their
best, not about  one side being more bloodthirsty than the other, nor even
about the immediate cost in lives and suffering, but about what course of
action has a chance of lessening human misery (I recognize that many in the
highest positions have other, less appealing motives, but none, I think, on
this list share those motives). Those arguments have a lot to do, I think,
with time-frame and an idea of what the sphere of action is. At the moment
human misery is winning, big-time, but its locus is limited. The question
is whether, in the first place, the near future will be better and safer,
and in the longer view, say over the next thirty years, the quotient of
human misery will have been increased or decreased by the present war and
its locus limited or vastly increased. And to the extent that the future is
predictable in only limited ways, the further question is whether, given
not just the present misery, but the possible consequences, the evidence
for one position or the other was and is so strong that the risk of taking
the wrong action was worth the gamble. I don't think it was--no one even in
the administration has been saying that the Iraqis would have been prepared
to use biological or chemical weapons in a significant way in less than a
year, and inspections backed by the threat of force, which seemed to be
having results, for that much time seemed a reasonable way to hedge all
bets.  It's not as if the Iraqis could have conceivably in that time become
strong enough to neutralize US forces--the inequalities of strength and
technology are so vast we might as well be mowing down an army of
spear-carriers.

The issues for those of us in the US border on the unreal. While the
consequences for our position in the world of having placed the wrong bet
are daunting, the increase in misery, if we've bet wrong, will be largely
felt very far away: occasional acts of terrorism will happen here regardless.

How far away? I just spent two days in the desert maybe 200 miles from LA
and 100 miles from Las Vegas. I stayed in a motel for the one night I was
away in the crossroads town of Baker. The TV got  a whole bunch of movie
channels but nary a news report. The local paper, a weekly, was the only
paper available.

I don't pretend that Baker, CA is typical in the unavailability of news. I
do suspect that it may indicate the answer  to the question that the polls
aren't asking: "how much do you really care one way or another about a)
short-term, and b) long-term, consequences."

Meanwhile, for those of you who worry about pretty minor excesses of
language, note that they are the result of real anguish and sleepless
nights, on both sides of the argument.

Mark