I agree with M. Chase that the invasion of Iraq created al-Zarqawi and the connection to al-Qaeda. I also agree with M. Chase that we will never know how many civilians were killed by U.S. troops, and no doubt that number would be distressingly large. I also agree with M. Chase that little can come from comparing this unknown number with the unknown number killed by Saddam. I certainly would not argue that the Iraqi civilians killed are _mere_ collateral damage. As M. Chase notes, there is nothing mere about the anguish of parents who have had their child blown up in their bed at home. I only want to make a simple point: that child who was killed was not targeted whereas the people who died while eating in a restaurant today were. This difference is of no matter with regards to the anguish of those who have to bury their children but it does have moral significance. If we want to make moral judgments, then we have to make moral distinctions. As far as I can tell, M. Chase declines to make such distinctions so I don't see any grounds for moral judgments. I have difficulty imagining how the Bush administration could have done a worse job of fucking-up the situation in Iraq but the fact remains that the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are under orders to do all they can to avoid civilian casualties. This distinguishes them, morally, from al-Zarqawi and his ilk. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html