Inhong says:

I suppose this all aussmes that one can ever justify a war. I’ve always felt the war on terror is more justified than the war in Iraq. Any war is going to have collateral damage, and once you assume some collateral damage is acceptable, then the question becomes, how much is acceptable? If you don’t believe any collateral damage is acceptable, you probably don’t believe any war is acceptable.That point aside, Monkey, I’m not sure your analogy holds up. We don’t kill murderers’ family members in the U.S. because we can capture the murderers without killing their families. OTOH, police will engage in high-speed chases to catch murderers, which sometimes result in innocent deaths. In Pakistan, the alternative to a bombing is to fight our way into these remote villages with ground troops putting both our own troops and additional civilians in danger, all (presumably) with less chance of actually taking out the intended target.Regarding the question of what Iraq has to do with it, the question is really about America’s image abroad. Would Pakistanis be more supportive of U.S. aggression against Al Qaeda if we weren’t also engaging in another attack on a muslim nation? Is the war in Iraq undermining the war on terror? Perhaps in the end it doesn’t matter to Pakistanis, but I don’t think the war in Iraq is irrelevant.