Is there an answer for this?

Clifford May writes about Iraq and makes arguments that, in my opinion, are irrefutable.

When the Army of Ansar al Sunna - a group tied to al Qaeda - attacks an American base near Mosul it should be apparent that Iraq is the front line in the War on Terrorism.

When Christian churches are bombed - as they were on the same day and in the same part of Iraq - and Shia mosques in Karbala and Najaf are targeted as well, it should be clear that the bombers are waging a most unholy war.

When Iraqi election workers are shot dead in the streets, as they were last weekend, the murderers' hatred for democracy ought to be obvious.

Yet somehow the debate goes on about whether those fighting us are really enemies of freedom, about whether or not it is imperative they be defeated.

The charge that Americans came to Iraq to steal oil is not much heard these days. Instead, the suicide bombers and throat slitters are romanticized as "militants" -- or even "nationalists" and "patriots" -- who are "resisting American occupation."

When those "militants" do something particularly barbaric - summarily executing civilians, blowing up police stations, beheading aid workers - the conversation never dwells long on their crimes. Instead, controversy swirls around America's failure to control "the security situation."

What kind of mind is it, exactly, that when confronted with these realities will argue that there is no danger? That this is about oil? That we should leave Iraq immediately? That the mess in Iraq is America's fault?

Far too often it's the mind of an American - someone who, having been spoiled by living in the safety and extreme comfort of America - can no longer think clearly or honestly face reality.

May closes with this axiom - "Only when the kind of butchery we witnessed this week strengthens, rather than weakens our resolve, will the barbarians see that the road they have chosen is a dead end – figuratively and literally as well." (Hat tip to Instapundit.)