a short pause from my usual self-absorbed blabber to point all of you, my loyal zero readers, to a great series that's been going on this week on slate. every now and then they get a few experts in a particular field to engage in a running email dialogue on something specific, and post it for the masses. this week they've had what they call the "i can't believe i'm a hawk" club - i.e., liberals who supported the war in iraq - including tom friedman, christopher hitchens, and ken pollack (whom i saw in person recently at a forum held by the atlantic. this venerable publication also came out with a great issue this week, which i urge you all to read before the 2004 nastiness begins, especially this article).

anyway, i have to say that over the course of this week's rolicking ride through liberal-hawk thought, my feelings toward the war have changed a bit. i've held that whether or not you support the war, there are two inescapable facts that most everyone accepts: 1) that, as i'm sure we'll be hearing ad nauseum from the president over the next 11 months, the world is a better place without sadaam hussein in power, and 2) that the way the war and its aftermath were planned, sold to the country/world, and carried out was stupid, immoral, and inexcusable. the difference between pro-war and anti-war people is whether or not, given the bungling and the lying, the war should have taken place. or, do the ends justify the means.

i had always said no, they don't. i also tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that comes out of bush's mouth. i confess, i believe the man is truly evil. i believed that since he clearly wasn't acting in the interests of iraqis, or the people of the world, whatever he did could only bring them/us harm.

what i didn't see, and what these guys have spent a great deal of time talking and thinking about, is the larger, more abstract, and more global picture.

some key things that resonated with me:

1. "Liberal democracy requires participation and consent, and as long as American military power is the prime tool for building it, Muslims around the world are unlikely to change their ideas. We need to decouple America and the promotion of democracy; the Iraq war did the opposite." - George Packer

2. the ideological connection between the Baath movement and radical Islamic groups and totalitarianism

3. the "terrorism bubble," the "vogue of suicide bombings," the "culture of death," and the need for something to bring about their end, and the idea that "avoiding action altogether was less tolerable than taking the risk of war."

this statement shows best where i was a week ago: "A democracy must not be led to war on the basis of deceit, even if the unarticulated reasons for going war remain persuasive to many of us." - Jacob Weisberg

this statement shows best where i am now: "The eggs are broken. Now we need to make a decent omelet." - Fareed Zakaria. in other words, the means sucked, the ends could be good, and now we need to get someone other than bush in here to make sure that they do turn out good.