A well argued piece from a person well qualified to comment on such matters. The situation in Iraq is finely balanced and Bin Laden's recent broadcasts show that he is anxious about the developments and as ever is appealing for unity in Muslim ranks. We do have to stay the course here and I speak from a British view as well as a US one.

What the Realpolitick and Neo-Con defenders seem to forget is a basic principle of Christianity that ties into a most essential Commandment from our Lord Jesus Christ. You overcome evil with good- so assuming that our own leadership intentions are clean, and not thoroughly sullied by their desire for resource and political controls, we should proceed with winning as many friends, with as many folks of goodwill, as is possible. You don't win the hearts and minds of foreign peoples in foreign lands by bringing in massive numbers of soldiers. If Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had been a mightly nation with a military to rival our own, and if Hussein had attacked our country- then there would have been the opening grounds for sending in the troops in genuine self-defense. Iraq was no such threat and Hussein was not responsible for 9-11 or in cahoots with Bin Laden's "Base". So we are tearing up any semblence of following international laws safeguarding the basic integrity of all nations' right to sovereignity. With the U.S. jettisoning international law we can hardly wonder why anyone would doubt that the rubric the world is operating under is once again- "Might makes Right".

Where once we (and the Israelis and Brits) supported Islamic jihadists around the Middle East, to undermine the rise of Arab/Persian secular nationalists- see Dreyfuss' book - Devil's Game and Kinzer's -All the Shah's Men- now the same elite forces in the West want to ignore recent history and declare that this is all about the Crusades - which the pathetic Arab Muslims have never stopped fighting. And so the "Clash of Civilizations" with Islam, conveniently replaces the Soviet Menace, and we will need to forget about the Church's cries for reductions in military budgets, and more transparent development assistance in the poorer regions, with a more globally-connected community of nations motivated by the Love of Neighbor, not Superpower "interests". In this war and occupation and strategy for Iraq and the Middle East- I find little to nothing for a believing Catholic to support or defend. Until we get serious about having a foreign policy that is actually in keeping with Christ's commands, we will just continue to follow the way of all the world's empires previous to our day in the sun. With 2 mil. Iraqi refugees, countless thousands of dead and wounded civilians- haven't we brought enough misery over there already? If your child had lived in Iraq- would you have cheered on the military invasion?

None of the mantras hold water. "They will follow us home." "We broke it, we must fix it." First and formost "they" really can not attack us. "They" have no navy, air force, or army. "They" can't make atom bombs. Fairy tales about dirty bombs and bio-weapons are just that. The fact that 9-11 "changed everything" is also bogus. The fact is 9-11 was a huge failure of government. People here should have been fired or jailed for their failure to do their jobs. Instead we attack a second rate nation who was not involved. The whole concept makes me sick. We need a government who does not "search for monsters to destroy" and a Constitutional government. Sadly only one candidate fits that description: Ron Paul

Who is "us" and who is "them"? How many "Radical Islamists" have the armies of the West really killed in Iraq, and even if killing them were justified, how is anyone to be certain that it is only killing "them"? Are mass warfare, ruthless occupation, and extermination (and essentially, what else IS "chess" against "Radical Islam," in this context?) really the proper tools with which Christians should deal with their fellow human beings?

I'm a "lapsed Catholic" myself, not among the believers anymore, and found this essay from the link in Christopher Manion's opposing essay here, itself linked from external site LewRockwell.com. I'm surprised by this piece. Even though I no longer subscribe to much of the Church's metaphysics, I still recognize arguments that don't stand up when examined in light of the history of the Church's thought.

Colonel Sharp is indulging in all sorts of poisoned, dare I say "heretical" thinking in this piece. Just who does he mean when he says "Radical Islam" here? It is a collectivist term. Collectivism is, bottom line, very anti-Christian -- it is arbitrarily assigning various individuals to arbitrarily invented groups and then deciding to treat these individuals according to criteria which vary according to one's view of their assigned group. Does that sound very Christ-like to anyone?

The most disturbing thing about Colonel Sharp's essay is its historical deafness and its blindness to the intellectual pedegree of the ideas it is propounding. He isn't just drawing erroneous conclusions from proper premises; he has whole-heartedly endorsed premises which are not only alien, like Gnosticism, but have been recognized as philosophically erroneous by Catholic and other thinkers for centuries: the idea that the Libido Dominandi, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_modern_times) against which Augustine's City of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_god) inveighs, is really a proper lens through which Christians ought to regard the world and their fellow man.

I notice that one comment above, whose subject line is "Anyone heard of overcoming evil with good?" almost begins to take the colonel to task on these grounds but really, how is it that thinking so patently contrary to Church teaching is given any creedence at all on this website as "a Catholic viewpoint"?

But how do you know things won't get worse? How do we know staying the course is the conservative thing to do and best under uncertainty. It seems that it is just as likely that by staying we will fan the flames and cause more war in the long run than that we will somehow pull out a win.

The analogy is nice but it doesn't add up logically. I would prefer some rational on why this or that is likely to happen because you can't argue from uncertainty that any strategy is preferable.

I believe the US is more likely to succeed in Iraq if we prepare for failure. We need to ask the Iraqis to decide whether our presence is productive. Bush has already done this implicitly by having an election, but this needs to be more explicit. The Iraqis need to ask themselves whether they deserve good government when they give in to fear or fail to vote or take actions to save their country from falling under tribal control. They need to have the responsibly of sending us home when the time is right. This can be viewed as mainly a win-win for the US. We get to help and are appreciated for what we're doing, or we get to go home and save our money and necks. The only bad side for the US is, if they send us home too soon and the place degenerates into chaos, the price of oil will rise and impact the economies of we non-OPEC countries. This is a risk but a price we should be willing to pay. I believe that placing more responsibility for success on the Iraqis will reduce the risk of failure. They need to look at failure straight in the eye and see if it is acceptable.
Would the prospect of US troops leaving be seen as a bluff? If so, the Iraqis may call this bluff with one of their own. Many think the US is in there for the oil. The Iraqis who think that may just pretend like they want us to leave so they can complain about their victimhood after we refuse to leave. We understand. We have plenty of people who behave like that in this country. But the Iraqis just might wish us out too soon whether by their stupid bluff, miscalculation, or whatever reason. And since we have a legitimate Iraqi government in place, we will have no choice to comply with an Iraqi resolution that we leave. Even if we believe that Iraq will degenerate into chaos, we must let it happen.
If we are prepared for the economic damage of Mideast chaos, the damage becomes, not only mitigated, but also less likely since the reason for bluffing goes away on both sides. We need to make the prospect of US troops leaving Iraqi credible to highlight the prospect of failure. This will force the Iraqis to (1) suck in their bitterness about victimhood, (2) resist the warlord/tribal dominance and (3) do what is necessary to make their country work.
Leaving Iraq too soon and in chaos may be seen as a victory for Al-Qaeda whose strategy was to make the US look bad by creating chaos through playing Iraqis against each other. If the Iraqis fall for this and the chaos becomes rampant as we leave, Al-Qaeda may spin this as a victory. However, it is hard to imagine any benefits or growth for any Muslim organization that succeeds in making gullible Muslims kill each other. More likely, the terrorists will be seen as the villains and the dammed fools that they are. When that sinks in and Iraqis no longer have foreign occupiers to blame for their problems, there has to be a damping effect on their warlord centered lifestyles. If Al-Qaeda considers this a win, God help them when they lose.

So how can the allies make the best of the Iraq situation? Robert Sharp and the dominant Republican US presidential prospects seem to have a one-dimensional view of how to proceed: Resolve to win and stay there indefinitely or give up and lose. I believe the correct approach must be a flexible strategy managed by someone with broad capabilities. The steadfast mindset does not always work. The Christian evangelists Paul and Barnabas did not resolve to beat a dead horse to perform their mission. Their repertoire included "brushing the dust off their feet" [and leaving] where their mission was not appreciated. The folly of stubborn, dumb determination is what passes today as the current majority "strategy". There are practical alternatives.

Suppose the US President would authorize the allied generals in Iraq to act like Paul and Barnabas? They would have to demand political progress with the threat of a "dust shaking" departure on a hair trigger. The current lack of incentive among the Iraqis to support political progress and the central government is a recipe for a life of chaos when the allies are gone. Pushing for political progress without that hair trigger guarantees both failure and dependency.

A situation comes to mind when my 5 and 7 year old boys were playing. Suddenly an angry dispute arose about a toy and it was clear they were depending on me to resolve it. My response was to immediately send them to a room and to tell them to stay there until the issue was resolved. They never got to the room; the conflict vaporized when they realized they could not use anger to avoid responsibility for their own conflict resolution.

Leave the Iraqi created problems to the Iraqis and they just might decide they no longer have the luxury of a comfortable warlord centered lifestyle. They just might solve those political problems by themselves if the cost of not solving them is seen as unacceptable.

Among the US Republican presidential candidates, only Ron Paul has a wide perspective approach to governing driven by a combination of morality, constitutional law, and common sense. That view showed most clearly in his analysis of the American civil war. His attitude is not fed by a passion to feel good about the deeds of our forefathers; it is based on fundamental decency. After all, where does it say in any good book that it's ok to kill your brothers if you disagree about where the boundaries of you country should be. Why must we feel good about being the only country failing to end slavery without resorting to a major civil war. A president who thinks like this could be good for our country and the world. We need a smart way out of Iraq and Ron Paul is the only one showing signs of wisdom.