We all know there are issues with the war in Iraq, regardless of whether we support it or not. (For all who support the war, remember that opposing a war yet supporting the troops themselves is perfectly viable.) No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Well, some chemical components have been found, but then, I have plenty of chemicals in my own home that can be used to do some serious harm. (I figure it's only a matter of time before that's used against me.) No nukes, although there have been unconfirmed rumors of Iraq moving the nukes to Syria or Libya just before the war. Saddam Hussein was cowering in a bunker as all bullies do when facing the bulk of the American military. Oil prices haven't exactly dropped as a result of freeing up Iraq's oil. (We won't go into the economics of this here.) Iraq has never been a major player in the terrorist game; sure, they help out a group or two here and there, now and again--but everybody knows it's Iran and Saudi Arabia who are the real power behind most of the world's terrorists. And of course, it was Pakistan that saw fit to practically publish the "secrets" of making nukes to every Muhammad and his brother. The region isn't exactly stable by any stretch of the imagination, but then, it never has been. So why are we in Iraq? Or more relevant, why are we still in Iraq?

Is the war in Iraq a just one? Let's start with the cause. Is it just? That depends upon how the cause is defined. If the cause was to liberate Iraqis from Hussein, an obvious tyrant, I think it might be passable. One could argue the Iraqis didn't ask to be liberated, and they certainly didn't do much of anything to help themselves. I have even argued that Iraqis do not possess that which is necessary for self-government, so liberation is dubious. The pretense for the war was not liberation or nation-building, but stopping terrorism and finding WMD. We failed to meet either objective, casting doubt on American intelligence--couldn't pass that one up!--and on the pretense for the war itself. This measure of a just war is dubious at its very best.

The second measure of a just war is that it's declared and waged by a legitimate authority. Texas cannot declare war on Mexico (not since it foolishly joined the Union), for example, because only Congress can declare war, according to the Constitution. Oops. Neither can the President declare war. And Congress cannot delegate its Constitutional duty to the President. And the Courts failed to stop either of the other two branches of government from violating the law and their oaths of office. The authority for the war in Iraq is illegal and bogus, so it fails the second test of a just war.

Whether or not the intention was right is a difficult matter to judge. Overlapping somewhat with the cause, or false pretense thereof, plus the enormous popularity of the war (at least in the beginning)--i.e., votes, money, kickbacks, etc.--makes good intentions difficult to see. Perhaps we can muster some benefit of the doubt, though. Maybe we can see our rules are the morons that they are, and they really thought it was the right thing to do.

Certainly a whole lot of useless diplomacy was attempted before going to war. This sort of people, though, care little for diplomacy, especially when their "holy" scriptures say it's okay to lie to your enemies. Perhaps the war was a last resort.

In all, it's quite challenging to see this as a just war, especially when so many of the criteria are bunk. Now that we're there and well entrenched, and now that we know things didn't go our way at all (e.g., democracy doesn't work, terrorism is on the rise, the average Iraqi is less safe than before the war, Christians have mostly left the country suggesting freedom of religion, anyway, is worse), it's difficult to get out without making matters even worse. If we cave, we're weak. If we leave before the bad guys are all killed, they'll keep multiplying and gain more control--now that the strong, central government of Saddam is no more. We've also been in the very business of nation-building we know fails. Most of the world hates America more today than 10 years ago, so as a P.R. campaign, it's utterly failed. I think our leaders see it as a case of "In for a penny, in for a pound."

If you want a simple solution to the ongoing war in Iraq that doesn't sacrifice American strength on the geopolitical stage, then nuke the nation completely off the map. By utterly crushing our enemies--and anybody foolish enough to be geographically near them--we demonstrate our resolve to maintain our global, hegemonic empire. We can show that we will not have mercy on our enemies. We will have used our overwhelming superiority over a wussy insurgency; after all, we don't need this proportionate war garbage when we are ultimately more powerful. Sure, we'll make enemies, especially when we kill millions of civilians. (The distinction between civilian and soldier is all but nonexistent among guerrillas, terrorists, and Muslims.) However, the world hates us already, so we don't have much to lose there. At least this way, we'll show our strength and resolve and make those pansy naysayers cower in their petty, little corner of the world. The oil under Iraq can be claimed as wholly ours without even paying for it. (Nukes are cheap compared to the cost of this war.) According to the Koran, Muslims go straight to heaven when they die as martyrs. We'd be doing them all a service by nuking them. (The fact that they're actually going to hell can be easily overlooked in a world intent on justifying every crackpot religion and worldview while simultaneously denying the truth of reality.)

I used to think it more advantageous to conquer them, induct them into the U.S., then tax and regulate them into submission like the rest of us. However, being Muslim, they're all intent on self-destruction anyway, so this peaceful solution just won't work. No, I think nuking them to oblivion sends the right message. Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan, and all the other would-be enemies of America can take note: we have enough nukes to destroy them all. Nuke all we want; we'll make more! If you want to eliminate threats to American security, this is the best solution. We kill all our enemies, scare any survivors into submission, and take whatever resources they may have like good empires and conquerors are supposed to do. Our security will be far more assured than it is now.

In for a penny, in for a pound. We're committed to an illegal war. The original cause is now moot. None of our goals have yet been met. Since we're the good guys, we can justify anything we feel we must do to win. There seems to be nothing to hold us back from obliterating Iraq and usurping the oil-filled lands for us alone. I like this plan! I’m excited to be a part of it! Let’s do it! The Bushes have long talked about a New World Order. This could be it: a glorious announcement to the world, made with megaton nukes, that the good ol' American Empire is coming out of the closet, so to speak.

What do you think? Is the war just (and what criteria are you using)? Are we stuck in a quagmire? Is there a way to extricate ourselves? What do you think of my proposed solution? If you don't like it, tell me what's wrong with it; I'll try to defend it with historically demonstrated American values. Do you have other solutions to the problem that is Iraq? Please share.