In the March of 2003 I was in high school. I lived in a small rural community that  was within easy driving distance of a very large national guard base. In normal times it was not unusual to stand on your porch in the south of town at night in the summers and hear the big 155mm guns doing night maneuvers.

None of which is to say that I endorsed anything to do with the Iraq campaign, merely to paint a map of an area that was by its definition near to the hear of normal reservists. My disagreement for the Iraq invasion was the same as they are today. Namely; that any invasionary policy did not increase US safety abroad or at home, nor did it accomplish any goals in deflecting or countering extremist terror. Instead it seemed to exacerbate anti-american sentiment in the region, and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American lives.

It has been argued that the Clinton era containment policy of Iraq had failed, and that a new stratagem was neccesary. Even if this was true, it is a long way from arguing that reductionist sanctions that regressive attacked poor Iraqi’s were bad policy to the idea that invading Iraq was the ONLY necessary solution.

Sadly, a lot of members of both houses of US Congress seem to have gone along with the falacy that since containment in its current form was failing it neccesitated a reactionary response such as invasion. The few members who disagreed with what was essentially a blank check to the Bush administration have been proven prescient.

When I was younger and knew I was against the idea of a war in Iraq, it was not because I was one of the pacifists, like my friends. I wholly supported the bombing of Serb reactionary forces in Kosovo and in Bosnia. I think my objection came from diverting so much energy and persons away from a limited foot-soldier encounter like Afghanistan to a full-om  invasion of Iraq that really didnt seem in keeping with the long term strategy of american policy. if you had asked a Reagan or Bush I whether invading and occupying an Arab nation was sound policy, I think their lack of faith would have been indicative.