SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE. Mark Goldblatt spells out the victory conditions: "The war on terrorism, in other words, cannot end with a surrender treaty; it can only end by compelling vast numbers of people to change their minds, to recognize their most heartfelt aspirations as impossible fantasies and to cut them loose. The war on terrorism can only end with an outbreak of mass sanity in the Islamic world. That's what we're after." That is what makes a constitutional republic and a functioning civil society in Iraq so important: a people going about their business without losing the best of their traditions will be a better reproach to the Islamofascists than any number of battalions. Jim Hoagland gets it: "The country's three major population groups -- Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds -- must all find benefits in demilitarization, de-Baathification and decentralization under a loose federal system. The American model of competitive executive and legislative branches that frequently prevent each other from getting anything done should be helpful to prevent future dictatorship.

Globally, Iraq cannot be treated by Washington as the opening shot in an era of American preventive wars or extended U.S. military domination of the Middle East. Iraq is sui generis, a one-time, per-presidency war not fought in response to direct attack. This campaign's ultimate success will lie in helping make sure there will be no need to repeat it." On to Teheran, or Damascus? Aren't the delusions of the mullahs and the Ba'athists internally self-contradictory enough? Is United Nations involvement a necessary condition for the project to be legitimate? (sorry for all the rhetorical questions, this is the last one.) Is the chess club any less a chess club if the Interfraternity Council isn't involved?