Well put, Fred.

I think the only important question is what other paths might be available to acheive the simple goal of "bringing about a more amenable frame of mind on the part odf the enemy" (Klausewitz). It is true we rapidly convinced Hussein he had no more power in Iraq. Three cheers for a fast, direct solution, eh? But, the question not addressed is what other means might have produced the same effect without violence? IF we agree the citizens of Iraq were more to be pitied than censured for living so long under despicable conditions of tyranny, surely that applies to the poor sods who, in the same hypnotic state of mind, stood against the advances of the U.S. Marines because the Iraqi government sent them out, and ended up paying for the mistake with their guts and lives.

An alternative remedy might have (a) gone down more smoothly (b) saved thousands of lives (c) prevented the loss of the national library and archaeological museums and (d) brought about a more gradual assimilation of the New IDea of personal freedom without the explosive suddenness of warfare and its current sequelae.

I think there is _serious_ research and funding needing to be done on the social inventions that have brought successful change to large groups of people without violence, to try and isolate how they work, what makes them succeed, or not, and how to apply that insight into improving human conditions.

I do not believe that violence is the only answer to authoritarian/dictatorial fascism. Seems to me that its the most popular one, though.

As a hypothetical, what would have happened to Iraq if a local Gandhi had appeared on the scene there?

A