There's an interesting column in the NY Times today by Maureen Dowd (read the entire thing here http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/opinion/09DOWD.html). She's not someone I read regularly, but Amelia pointed to her column in her blog, and Amelia usually points to interesting stuff, so I surfed over and read it. Anyway, Dowd said this about our current administration:

"Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were determined to lead America out of its post-Vietnam, post-Mogadishu queasiness with force and casualties, to change the culture to accept war as a more natural part of a superpower's role in the world."

And it reminded me of something my friend Mark said in his blog (wow, all this reference to blogs, you'd think I never speak to anyone in person...oh, wait, I don't). And I'm worried that it's working, our society is becoming less and less freaked out by the fact that Bush and his cronies are already casting glances at Iran and North Korea for our next "pre-emptive strike." Some people do seem to be accepting war as just another thing that goes along with being a "superpower." Please don't get me wrong, and please don't label me a peacenik. I'm realistic about the fact that there is a certain kind of peace that can only be achieved on the other side of war. But I am also realistic about the fact that war should only be an absolute last resort, that war is never quick or easy, and that war is always devastating. What's wrong with being queasy about using force that results in casualties? Nothing in this world teaches us that killing is acceptable. Except the government.