The thing that has me perplexed comes from a consideration of the claim (which I accept) that we (the US) "made" the Baath party.

Acknowledging that, what do we do about it now?

We could do nothing, letting the Iraqi people sort it out.  (Presumably while they continue being intimidated, maimed, starved, tortured, and executed by the Baathists.)

We could engage them in a limited way, letting the rapist, torture-mad Baathists keep their power, so long as they allow us to feed, clothe, bathe, and give medicine to their citizenry.

We could engage them in a less limited way, by supporting the opposition to the Baathists.  (In which case we'd just have to hope the Baathists ran out of nerve gas before we ran out of allies.)

We could confront them full-on, and tear out the regime we previously supported, by root and by branch.

The war is a mess, as were WWI, WWII, and all their offspring.  But the buying public is not up for critical thinking.  If you present the war as a mess, then you'll get, essentially, the UN response:  foot-dragging.

In the Pepsi vs. Coke society, it's hardly surprising that the war is sold to the masses in such simplistic terms.  We don't have to buy it exactly as sold, but given the Gordian place in which we find ourselves, I fail to see a way out that is any better.

The world will see the images of little girls with their heads blown apart, or their feet mangled and gone.  It suits the purposes of the Iraqi regime that those images get disseminated.  It also gives those willing to look a terrible glimpse into the reality of what happens when bombs fall.  (Those labels of "photos the media won't let you see" are really just rhetorical devices with obvious aims.)

But you won't see the Baathists admitting anything, or allowing anyone to hold a contrary view, or choosing to go against a previous, bad policy, when it turns out their partners in crime are far worse characters than they had suspected. 

You won't even see the Baathists sharing the food they got in the "oil for food" program over the past decade.  It seems they stockpiled it in warehouses and bunkers for military (Baathist) use, rather than feed the starving children.  (Imagine that.)

That, at least, makes me think that it is possible to see this war as--far from "good vs. evil"--at least being fought between distinguishible shades of gray.

But if I seem less perplexed here, at the bottom of my statement, than I did up there, at the top, it is only rhetoric that makes it so.  As I said before, this is unsettling stuff, and I am unsettled by it.

Herring405