[Future Proof]

If military and political tactics are to always follow precedents, then I have to say that the precedents set in the first half of this decade were pretty abominable and we're in for a rough stretch to come. I sincerely hope however that higher logic and intelligence are to prevail in this situation. As far as Saddam goes, he controlled Iraq for decades, gassed the Kurds, threw UN inspectors out of the country, and the list goes on and on of his inequities. A marked man in many circles virtually since he took office, he ended up being executed after being found guilty of the execution of 100+ commonfolk, a far cry from the worst of his actions but barbaric and cruel none-the-less.

So yea, Saddam had it coming. The can of karmic worms was sprung very early on and he didn't stand a chance of trying to close it again. The problem with Iraq however is that in spite of Hussein's sins the outcome that prevailed would've never occurred is the U.S. hadn't presented a string of lies on why they had to invade. The U.S. turned its back on the UN, fearmongered on every podium available, and as the lies were refuted and nothing materialized, the lies changed. First it was WMD, then it was Iraq providing shelter to Al-Quaeda, and in the end the Dubya-led White House actually had the gall to say "Yes, we got it wrong on all counts... who cares?" Well, I care and so do many others. I would've been fine invading in 1986 when chemical warfare broke loose, and I would've been fine if we invaded in 1996 after Hussein once again forced UN Inspectors out. I cannot ever be fine though with our country putting at risk of lives of its servicepeople, and the lives of average citizens in the invaded country as if they were acceptable losses. We failed abyssmally to exact justice, compassion and the protection of civil liberties to those being deprived of them.

I don't understand what's kept North Korea from getting blown to bits but if war is inevitable on that front, then let it be a multi-national effort where truth prevails at every turn. Let there be transparency from the first day, until the last bullet has been fired. But please for the love of god, if the truth isn't sufficient evidence then let nothing happen at all. No more concocted stories, no more suspicions of advancement and gain over justice. I can stomach NK making the first strike, I can't stomach however going through another war that I feel should've never happened. Hopefully a first strike on anyone's part will never happen, but the practice of wreaking havoc and bloodshed because we just feel like it has to end.

As for Iran, Iran's seen many changes in it's leadership since 1979, the Iran/Iraq war and so forth. Ahmedinajad, once again, is a frigging nutcase but I'm encouraged with what I'm seeing out of his lately. Willingness to talk, willingness to simmer down a bit. Heck, he even dropped rhetoric of the denial of the holocaust in a recent speech -- now there's some progress. I realize that while Iran's ran by him (and probably anyone else for the foreseeable future that comes from the Iran power model) that Iran's going to continue to go through multiple facets of dysfunction, and they're always going to be a little bit (ok who am I kidding, VERY...) scary. But I feel an obligation to let the people of the region sort out their own mess, rather than us do it. If they want to run around like a crazy train running off the rails, then that's their prerogative. The disenfranchised will either flee the country or they will galvanize and fight, and that's sufficient for me, though I wish that things could be different.

I feel that it's in America's best interest to let new fronts be waged within the borders they originate, and we stop picking fights. Promoting our definition of freedom isn't about forcing it upon people that don't have comparable civil rights, promoting freedom is about allowing other countries to decide how much freedom they wish to have, and allowing the people of these countries to work for the model of civil liberties that they wish to have. One pill that seems tough to swallow is that due to cultural and religious values, most countries in the Middle East desire hard and rigid codes with little personal autonomy and freedom, and fierce consequences for those who step out of line. It's what they want, and I'm ok with that. We just can't win however when we interfere with force. Even if we clean house, everyone else in the world, every major world player, every country with the same thirst for liberty, growth and reasoning, ends up despising us. And even if we were to be right, to be judged negatively by countries that stand little to no chance of turning into the horrific designs of the Middle East's worst entities is a consequence that could one day be too burdensome to bear.

My heart still breaks over the thought of Roxana Saberi, I just feel like I'm done entirely with the Middle East. Once we finally get out of Iraq, I think we just remove ourselves from the region as much as possible, encourage those that value their general welfare to think long and hard about traveling to the Middle East, and let them sort it out amongst ourselves. If we get on fantastic terms with Iran, Syria and Iraq through diplomatic and cooperative efforts then great! I'm just tired of that region's problems becoming our problems, and then watching the rest of the sane world boggle and lambaste our actions. And when we finally figure out a way to teleport people and regions to other planets, I say we offer that service freely to anyone in the Middle East that wants to take us up on the offer!