I believe we are already in WWIII and are already at war with Iraq. So from
this perspective the "No War" crowd seems to me irrelevant, missing the
point. My mouth hangs agape when I see the celebs and others trying to
make their case, which to me is no case whatsoever because I see no logic
or rigor or contemporary awareness in it.

I very much respect some no-war arguments, such as those being made by
military people like General Anthony Zinni, and military analysts like John
Mearshimer. They argue that Saddam poses no immediate threat so a
stepped-up policy of containment is the better course, plus more thinking
about our commitment to a postwar Iraq. It's hard to argue with this
position.

Also I respect hardcore pacifists who are willing to face the true
consequences of their beliefs.

But the anti-war crowd itself has produced no argument or person of
credibility to me. In a perfect world, an international military force would
coalesce to disarm Saddam before he gets the bomb and other WMD's. As it
is, President Bush, although I doubt his commitment to a satisfactory follow-
through, is taking this job upon himself and the U.S.

So which is the better way to expend our energy as individual citizens? Is it
1) To try to persuade the administration to be more diplomatic and to work
harder on international coalition before killing or ousting Saddam; or 2) To
try to persuade the administration and our fellow citizens to make the
inevitable war as short, as humane, and with as much solid commitment to
a democratic postwar Iraq as possible?

Basically I have chosen option #2. That's the position I took with A Global
Citizen Thinks About War which I sent around earlier. If it I thought there
was a chance that #1 would work, I'd do that. But I don't think there's a
chance of it.