The war in Iraq will continue with or without the active involvement of the US military. Most everyone agrees that in the short term, a complete and immediate withdrawal of US forces would cause a chaotic bloodbath. When people talk of "ending the war" by withdrawing American forces, they are not being completely honest. A US withdrawal cannot "end the war"; it only can end the scope of American involvement in the war. That may well be a proper goal. I would prefer, however, that any discussion of the issue acknowledge that an American withdrawal would not necessarily "end the war," any more than the US withdrawal from active military involvment in Viet Nam, ended the war in Viet Nam. What ended the war in Viet Nam was the victory of the North Vietnamese Army. Many who opposed the war in Viet Name recognized that the consequence of "Vietnamazation" and American military withdrawal would be a continuation of the war and a North Vietnamese victory in the continued war. In the current discussion of the Iraq war, I do not find many who favor American military withdrawal from Iraq who are willing to be honest about the consequences - or at least honest about predicting the effects of the withdrawal. In the case Viet Nam, the anti-war view was that it did not matter if North Vietnam won the war. In the case of Iraq, do the anti-war proponents care if those killing American troops win the war?

The single most obvious requirement for the continuation of a free society is a limitation on the ability of any individual to lead the society. No person should be permitted to lead a nation or government more than eight (8) years, which is the two term limit on the President of the USA. Six (6) years might be better. No supporter of freedom should tolerate any deviation from such term limits.

No one who supports democratic ideals should encourage or support any individual who seeks to remain in power indefinitely. Castro in Cuba is perhaps the best living example. Musharraf in Pakistan is a good current example. Whatever his other positives and negatives, for Musharraf, it is all about him. He expressly complains about people trying to undermine him - not undermine democracy or the government in a general sense, but him. Sure, he otherwise can mouth the words, the platitudes, but at the end of the day, he cannot see that his personal interests are not the same as the people's interests. Vladimir Putin is another current example. Without question, the people of Russia, as a whole, would be far better served by turnover in the top job. Who questions that principle? To oppose Putin remaining in power is not to oppose him personally, it is to state for democratic principles and ideals. A final example from current events is Hugo Chavez. He wants total, absolute power. To support him in his efforts is to support authoritarianism and dictatorship.