I think that convincing the large majority of the population of the U.S., of the allies of the U.S., of the Islamic world, and of the world as a whole, of the justness of the war, is essential to the U.S. administration's winning any war against Iraq, and/or against terrorism.
If the U.S. does go to war against Irag, it, of course, will come out on top militarily. But without the above mentioned majority support of the various populations, it will have lost the larger war.
Winning an unjust war, or even a perceived unjust war, is not really winning the war.
The terrorism alert level in the U.S. was recently downgraded from orange to yellow (less perceived danger). This is considered a good thing. One thing that will get the terrorism alert level back up, to the top red level no less, is the U.S.'s starting the new Iraq war.
Not only might the previously perceived terrorist threats become active, but George may discover new threats showing up.
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a matter of perspective.
The difference between a just leader and a war criminal is a matter of which side wins the war.
As I see it, George W. and associates are setting themselves up, to go down in history as being perceived as being some of the greatest war criminals ever. That is because it seems that they are about to win the small war, but loose the greater war.
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-05-2003]
™ Version 4.2