Stakes rise again. :(

I'm sort of "for" the Iraq war, with a number of reservations.

For one thing, I hate war. I recognize that it's not always avoidable, and I think that once you've committed to it, you can't "un-commit" to it - so once you've engaged, there's no way out except to persist until you've ended it - or someone else ends it for you. War, however, is barbaric. It's a waste of humanity. It's a failure, no matter how successful the war itself is.

I "support" the Iraq invasion because Saddam Hussein was a stain on humanity. He's a fine example of the kind of human who should have been slain at birth. His country may have been somewhat orderly under his reign, but a position cemented by fear and torture isn't something that should be tolerated - freedom may be messy, but it's freedom. I'm not one of those who prefers a calm slavehood to a messy freedom. (Can you tell I'm American?)

I don't care about weapons of mass destruction, although their use as justification for a war that could have been justified in other ways does concern me.

It "concerns me" much as I'm "concerned" when my brother destroys his ankle. Pragmatically speaking, WMD is a great way to rally the masses to support you. Realistically... come on, guys, the existence of a vial of Sarin and a few illegal missiles isn't quite enough to topple a country. Ask France about it. Germany armed under their watchful eyes.

Now, however, with London being attacked... the long-range views of Iraq come into play. To me, Iraq is the first attempt, one prong among many, to change the cultural dynamic of the Middle East into something more peaceful, more stable. The prevailing wisdom said that Iraq was the central battleground, a magnet to draw all combatants into a paroxysm of fury - in Iraq, leaving the rest of the world alone.

What's more, Iraq would be able to defend itself - with help - and there'd be a working republic in the Middle East, besides Israel. That would be a great thing, in my opinion, although its birthing pains are, uh, not quite what I'd desire.

So perhaps London represents another failure of the "Iraq as primary battleground" concept (besides, say, Madrid). I say "perhaps" because, well, being blunt and slightly cruel here, London's attack was fairly minour compared to four jets being flown into occupied buildings.

Yet it's undeniable that London shows that al Qaeda still has some pressure points to apply, even if they're not directly responsible (I'm unsure whether al Qaeda is actually claiming responsibility or not.) I think it's safe to say that al Qaeda's the head of the snake here, and it ain't dead yet.

So the Herculean task goes on, if you'll pardon the reference.

All I can say right now is that my heart goes out to London. :(