Peace advocacy is more than opposition; it is defined not by what it opposes but by what it proposes.
If the unilateralist hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush were hoping that the easier than expected military victory in Iraq would bring the U.S. public closer to their views, they are likely to be very disappointed by the latest public
ccording to the Bush administration, settling Iraq was to be a prelude to settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict via the Bush "road map."
After its successful invasion of Iraq, the U.S. appears to be at the height of its power.
When the Bush administration totals up the cost of the Iraq War it had best be prepared to tack on billions more to clean up the toxic residue of how this country wages war, specifically its widespread use of cluster weapons and Depleted Uranium (DU).
As U.S. forces consolidate the occupation in Iraq the neoconservatives are bringing the war home.
But from all the attention it has received as the fighting in Iraq has diminished, one has the impression that Syria is a major threat to the United States.
While Iraqis want U.S. help, they do not want U.S. influence, particularly in the formation of their democracy and its supporting civil structure.
Organizations that might have opposed war must not adopt the position that by participating in planning for post-conflict relief efforts or for new institutions of governance, they are somehow legitimizing the war or compromising their position.
The war fought ostensibly to disarm Iraq will almost certainly lead to nuclear proliferation and the armament of the rest of the world. While, for the time being at least, many people in Iraq will indeed rejoice at the overthrow of their tyrant--the rest