So, in this vein a few of us partook a long week end in a little known inn in the Poconos, where the peaceful setting provided by gentle hills, the placid lake and the excellent menus enabled us to discuss to our heart's content the present situation of this so called War on Terror.

The Professor opened the proceedings with a short reference to the findings of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate whose contents have been interpreted as a serious indictment of the policies followed by the Bush Administration's in its war against Iraq and the rep0ort form the Study Report.

"Fine Professor, but let me say that the intelligence agencies involved are not saying anything new. Most of the major newspapers are unanimous in their criticism of the Bush Administration and its failure in the so called War on Terror. Further, some of them are quite explicit in pointing out the many flaws involved and the fact that the President has led the country astray."

"Correct. But the findings go beyond a passing reference to the failures of the Bush Administration and points to the need, critical at this point, to take a good look at this war on terror and to examine what attitude we must adopt and what policies we must formulate. This to me is the value implied in the findings of the 16 agencies involved and the Study Report"

As usual, the discussion that ensued reached the various tones of constructive and well thought out exchanges that went from the drastic impeachment suggestions to the more rational and realistic acknowledgment of a defeat, as unpleasant as it might sound. But it would be a defeat that would lead to the recovery of our national pride, the acceptance of our principles and renewed possibilities for settlement of conflicts in the area.

The question at this point is what the next steps would or should be. Again, the Professor:

"I feel that in this case we must identify the enemy in a clear and comprehensively manner. We must avoid gratuitous declarations about the Arab and Muslim world and let people know who the enemy is. We can begin with our own government and its dashing president. There is no excuse under the sun for an unnecessary invasion as that of Iraq. The American people were easily duped by a stream of falsehoods, half truths, innuendo and just plain deception. You tell me if such action does not deserve impeachment, and if we were in a Middle Eastern country, a clean beheading in the town square!"

"Professor, the mountain air seems to be working its magic on you. It is claimed that it brings lucidity and reduced levels of apprehension. Please continue"

"Start with the insurgents, who happen to be, in the case of Iraq, a dark legion of pseudo idealists with strong criminal inclinations. We are talking about the "jihadists", or the ones who firmly believe that their destiny lies in the creation of an ultraconservative theocratic state in the entire Middle East or, worse yet, in all countries where minorities have adopted the Muslim faith."

A former State Department official enlarged upon this concept:

"In the case of Iraq we must accept the jihad intention but must also identify some of the conditions that allow this uprising to exist. To simplify let me say that Iraq will always have within its present territory three major sources of conflict: three radically different ethnic, religious and socio-political entities. The Shiites, the Sunis and the Turks. One of these, the Turks, under Sadam, were permitted to create something similar to self government and at present have managed to control, or eradicate any Jihad tendencies. The Shiite and the Sunis however are another kind of headache. The reasons are both old and new. Keep in mind that the British and the French invented some of the countries in the Middle East with little regard to tribal identities and traditions and those identities and traditions have come back to hunt us."

The coffee break involved a short walk to a magnificent terrace with a view worth a bottle of the best champagne, but it being mid morning, we settled for cappuccinos, espressos and regular coffee and tea accompanied by small offerings of cinnamon cake, delicate éclairs and cream filled wafers. In time we returned to the cozy lounge and continued our conversation.

A question was posed the moment we sat down.

"How come the Bush Administration did not take into account the existence of these currents in Iraq? Is it possible to invade a country of 27 million people without having an idea about its make up, its structure and its soul?"

Our former State Department officer replied:

"There is enough data and know-how on Iraq and incidentally on almost every country in the globe at State. There were report after report, profiles, background files, summaries and many other information efforts that unfortunately were never heeded. We ran into an incredible wall of arrogance never imagined. Perhaps Colin Powell was the only one who seemed genuinely concerned about invading a country that has lived a latent civil war since 1922."

"How about the President?"

"Strictly a wide brush artist. All we got was the usual sing song about freedom and democracy and the protection of the American people. Condi was the echo, but let us go back to what you said. Yours is without doubt a most useful observation, Professor. It has been found that most people in the U.S. and elsewhere tend to classify Middle East people in the same mold. A great deal of education is needed. We must avoid that fatal tendency to identify people using the wrong frames of reference. Just remember the days when every American was considered a gangster, a cow boy or a Marlon Brando type bully from the New York docks.

The Professor added:

"We must remember however that the vast majority of Muslims reject this idea of a jihad; it is precisely that idea that can be the end of the jihadists, radicals or extremists. There is also the fact that a jihad movement can only succeed if it is properly supported. In this respect, present Muslim-related conflicts provide the ideal base. There are enough tensions in the Middle East, Central Asia and even Southeast Asia"

Another opinion was heard:

"We face few alternatives that offer better solutions. One involves the type of effort needed to take the wind out of the sails of the so called radical ideology. Unfortunately, our credibility is an all time low in the Muslim world and does not allow us to employ our resources to create a climate were changes could be made. We need to project a more sophisticated and realistic view of the Islam world."

There was a chorus of agreement while more coffee and tea was consumed and croissants and cakes quickly disappeared, confirming the saying that "worldly discussion leads to goodly digestion'. Then:

"This suggests the need to work with those countries that have a direct interest in Iraq. Beginning with Iran, whose 8 year war against Iraq has left considerable resentment, if not hatred against Iraq. Syria is next, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or whatever is left; not ignoring for a moment the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is a parallel chapter all in itself The more the merrier. It means a slick diplomatic crusade that unfortunately, the present administration can not mount and unable even to conceive!"

This was getting interesting, I thought. I reflected that ours was not an idle meeting of idle minds but a serious look at a most urgent matter, its origin, consequences and potential solutions. In many ways, those attending had a voice, small in many cases, but still it a voice that could add a valid opinion to more official lines of thought. The Professor said:

"America can not expect to win the hearts and minds of Muslims as long as it remains in Iraq. Meanwhile the White House and its slogan-loving circles of power, continue to theorize, debate and reflect on whether to add more troops or set withdrawal benchmarks, cut lines, deadlines, course changes and other ridiculous references to a simple "what the hell do I do now?"

We al laughed, and then someone asked the Professor: "Taking a page from Genghis Khan, General Sherman or General Eisenhower, can this conflict be resolved with the use of massive force? Say a million more troops?"

"The answer is yes as far as eliminating all insurgent and warring factions. But it will have a high cost in lives and will just about accomplish over a long period what Colin Powell said to Bush prior to the invasion: 'You break it, you buy it!"

By then it was lunch time and we repaired to the cozy dining room where a unique menu was awaiting us. Will tell you about it another time.

Optimism is the chance to replace the maybe, perhaps

and could be perspectives, with achievable aims

The Professor