Here's a good balanced view of this whole US-Iraq thing.

Present at...What? an editorial in The New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman (Registration required)

Well, it leans a little towards war... but neverthless, presents a good case for the US to hold back its attacking instincts till a global coalition is formed.

That means the Bush hawks need to realize they cannot achieve their ultimate aim of disarming and transforming Iraq without maximum international legitimacy. And the Euro-doves need to realize they cannot achieve their aims of a peaceful solution in Iraq and preserving the U.N. and the whole multilateral order without a credible threat of force against Saddam Hussein.

That's quite right! The "unilateral war" that the US seeks to start against Iraq will be disastrous for the world order without the support and consent of the other countries... even though US is the world's greatest and the only superpower.

The first rule of any Iraq invasion is the pottery store rule: You break it, you own it. We break Iraq, we own Iraq — and we own the primary responsibility for rebuilding a country of 23 million people that has more in common with Yugoslavia than with any other Arab nation.

I like the pottery store rule! :-)

We don't need a broad coalition to break Iraq. We can do that ourselves. But we do need a broad coalition to rebuild Iraq, so that the American taxpayer and Army do not have to bear that full burden or be exposed alone at the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. President Bush, if he alienates the allies from going to war — the part we can do alone — is depriving himself of allies for the peace — the part where we'll need all the friends we can get.

We need a compromise. We need to say to the French, Russians and Chinese that we'll stand down for a few more weeks and give Saddam one last chance to comply with the U.N. disarmament demands — provided they agree now that if Saddam does not fully comply they will have the U.N. authorize the use of force.

If war proves inevitable, it must be seen as the product of an international decision, not an American whim.

This last point is very critical... from an international point of view. Then Friedman rounds off his editorial by giving a very valid argument, which may sound arrogant, but is very important if the US wants to prevent another Vietnam.

Because there is no war we can't win by ourselves, but there is no nation we can rebuild by ourselves — especially Iraq.

We need more such balanced views. Neither the hawkish "war cries" nor the pacifist "make love not war" views will help. As always... the middle path is always the best. Take it America... the world and more importantly, Iraq, will be grateful to you for doing so!