Did you happen to catch one of the weekend anti-Iraq war protests? I didn't either, being too busy with work, following the NCAA tournament and law school (in that exact order). I happened to spot an afternoon rally at a local suburban intersection, one among many that occurred in New York, Washington, San Francisco and in front of the Federal Building in West LA. It looked like there were between 50 and 100 people there. It was peaceful despite the presence of two Sheriff's cars. The protestors and officers were actually huddled together conversing about I don't know what, but I'm going to guess it wasn't about Iraq.

Seriously what's their point? Three years ago I could see why tens of thousands voiced their opposition to the war against Saddam Hussein in a vain hope of preventing it but now? What do they honestly think they are going to accomplish? Or hope to accomplish?? Has the anti-war movement in this country been reduced to simple platitudes like "Bush lied, troops died" in a juvenile attempt to come off as intelligent and witty when in fact most protestors then and now are small-minded souls who know little to nothing about history.

Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or the gathering threat that was Saddam Hussein, he spun the best American and British intelligence available at the time in his favor and made a judgment call. That's what Presidents do. Troops did die, but they were in harms way before the invasion and being shot at by Saddam patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq reached as part of the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire. Saddam never stopped fighting that war against us. It was long time we started fighting back. You never here facts like these by protestors and in the anti-war movement. Nor will you hear anything regarding the scandal that was the UN sanctioned oil-for-food program that allowed Saddam to sell his oil not to purchase food and humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people but so he could restart his weapons programs. The truth doesn't lend itself to simple slogans and stupid protest chants which is why intelligent people, even intelligent war opponents figured out something better to do this past weekend.

I remember when I was at UCSB and a group of students went up to Seattle for the massive protest against the then WTO meeting. Many were arrested and it got a lot of attention in the media but did little more than embarrass city and convention officials. The world economy marched on. And so it is with this. At least the WTO protestors were creative and interesting in their costumes and their methods. Supersized heads of George Bush and Tony Blair and staged "die-ins" aren't funny and cute when US soldiers are still on the front lines trying to accomplish their mission anti-war supporters never supported.

My problem with them I guess boils down to the fact that the protestors, like many war opponents in general want so much for the US to get to the "root causes" of the violence and despair in places like Iraq, the Palestinian territories and the Middle East yet they never propose an alternative. They want change and results but never want to get their hands dirty and then mock those, the troops, the Administration, neoconservatives who actually do. Dissent is every bit as much an American value as patriotism and service but if it doesn't manifest itself into an actual agenda it smacks of nothing more than the whiny, little kid who cries when he doesn't get his way. Stop throwing a temper tantrum and start producing results! Opposing the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Patriot Act and mocking the color coded threat levels of the Department of Homeland Security is not going to win over the confidence and trust of the American people in a post-9/11 world and win an election.

Protestors can say what they want about President Bush, three years after Iraq, that country HAS NOT descended into civil war despite the best attempts of the MSM to convey that, Saddam is in custody and not in power and World War III has not broken out. Given all that could have gone wrong already; a terrorist attack again on American soil, an attack by Saddam against Israel, a much wider and bloodier conflict across the Middle East, etc. etc. I would argue that the worst is behind us. Even the LA Times, no Iraq war supporters by any means is cautioning against simply packing up and leaving. The number of US soldiers who died in 2005 is lower than in 2004. It took this country nearly a decade to evict the British after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and that was in the much slower world of the 1780s and no 24/7 news cycles. The biggest obstacle to succeeding in Iraq has always been, and continues to be, the impatience of the American people and Washington DC, a byproduct of our instant gratification society where long term projects are anathema to election cycles, quarterly reports and overnite ratings.

The American people, the vast majority of those who did not protest this past weekend want to win the war in Iraq and want it to happen now. These twin goals have always been in conflict and explain why the level of support for Operation Iraqi Freedom hovers between 40 and 60 percent. Twenty percent of the people three years on still don't know whether they are for it or against it. Yet I bet if you were to ask such a conflicted person if they want to lose, and reap the consequences of losing 95% find that scenario unacceptable and will choose to stick with the troops, hardship and all until our mission is accomplished. The endgame in Iraq most people understand is not cutting and running but Victory.

Semper fi.