Iraq is NOT free.

[rogerashton]

In a free society, a person can carry on life in the confidence that life and property are reasonably secure -- and that means that niether government nor anyone else will take his (or her) life or property or attack them in the normal course of events.

What does this have to do with getting rid of dictatorships? The experience of the 20th century has taught us that (in modern conditions anyway) most people can never feel secure from government attack, murder or theft under absolute rule. The temptation of kleptocracy is too great, and the insecurity of real dictators is too great, for the common person ever to feel safe from them.

But getting rid of dictators is not enough. It is necessary also to have a lawful government strong enough to suppress those who want to murder or despoil others, either for profit or for ideological reasons. And the United States has not been able to establish any such regime in Iraq, largely because our government did not see the need until it was too late, and will not pay the cost.

But the real question is, is our government strong enough to assure us of freedom from attack by private villains? Do you feel free from such threat? Has "minimal government" gone so far in this country that private terrorists and brigands can operate and flourish? Could that be a reason why we did not worry about the decay of order in post-Saddam Iraq?