Input Junkie

To me, the main way in which WWII was different was that the source of the attack on U.S. soil and the nation we were fighting were the same! This is a point that has become obscured in many ways--people who believe the terrorists on the plane were Iraqi when none were, people who believe El Queda was somehow hiding in Iraq when they weren't/aren't, etc. The war on Afganistan made OK sense to me, though I thought it would be pointless and it was. But at least there were El Queda operatives there to find (or not). The only connections I see between 9/11/2001 and Iraq make me queasy--they're all towelheads who don't like us.

In a conversation the other day with womzilla, I said I make a distinction between being "at war" and being "in a war." The prepositions may be idiosyncratic, but I think the distinction is vital. "At war" is mutual, with enemies who each stand to lose. "In a war" is one-sided or a mutual conflict between others that we've poked our noses into. WWII we were "at war," Vietname we were "in a war." And now, it's like we're "in a war" in two ways at once--El Queda vs. us, us vs. Iraq--but not, to my mind, "at war" at all because the two don't match up. Oh no--I see I let the wolves out!