As with most situations where military force has been deployed, there is a desire to investigate the why and how with clinical precision. Years later, after the initiation of deployment, much of the emotion of the times, as well as considerably more information not available then now being available, must be considered.

When 9/11 happened, the national mood was one of utter dismay, some fear, a measure of panic, and just plain shock. For weeks, each news broadcast seemed to start with images of the Twin Towers aflame and tumbling, and other images of the resulting devastation for a considerable radius around that NY block. Within the DC area, as commuters drove on Interstate 395 in Arlington, the impact on the Pentagon was a constant and visible reminder of what happened. Add to that the Pennsylvania crash site, and it was beat into the American psyche that bad guys wanted to destroy average Americans just for being average Americans, and nobody knew who was next.

The internal response - creation of an Office of Homeland Security within the White House which evolved into a Department, creation of the Transportation Security Agency and all it has become - was one step to calming the public, but it was only one step. There was still a massive public cry - fueled by the media - to find and destroy Osama bin Laden and all who made these tragedies happen. That included not only the "trigger men," but also everyone who supported logistically the terrorist cause.

Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.

The American psyche, right or wrong, was not satisfied with simply a defensive response to 9/11. The demand was to "go get them" and much frustration built up when little appeared to be happening to bring the 9/11 slime to justice, or bring justice to them. In the meantime, Iraq continued in it's role as chief logistician (supplying arms, training, and other support) to Al Qa'ida.

As any military strategist knows, if you eliminate the logistic support, the other guy has nothing to fight with, and that's key to ending any war. So, taking Iraq out of the Al Qa'ida support role was a legitimate and necessary action.

So, the USA, with several allies, went into Iraq. The USA had to publicly and notoriously demonstrate in this century, as it had in prior ones, that an attack on the American homeland would result in massive and powerful response on any and/or all who attack the homeland. That's what has kept the number of attacks on US soil to a relative few in the nation's history, and occasionally a new generation of bullies and bums want to test our resolve.

A lot of noise regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as being the ONLY reason for the Iraq war was made. That's bunk! There were several, and WMD was only one of them - but it was the one that got the most press coverage, mainly because "logistics" is rather dull and boring to many.

It is rotten that so many fine Americans have been severely injured or killed in the past years since 9/11 in military action. However, it was also rotten that so many were also injured and killed after Pearl Harbor during WWII, and after the Lusitania sinking during WWI, and after the USS Maine sinking during the Spanish-American War, and so many more were also injured and killed in other military actions which the initiating reasons were blurry to the public.

Hindsight has been classified as being "20:20," but it rarely is. There's a lot of political posturing done with hindsight investigations, and the emotions which aren't part of the historical writings are scantly available.

Those who question why the USA has or has not done something are not wrong or misguided. They force us to insure we don't become what we despise. As long as the goal of any criticism - positive or negative - is a better America, we all win. What must be a concern with a criticism is the goal. If it is for a better America, hooray! If it is simply political posturing, that would be sad.