We get even more e-mail

A reader takes issue with my reference to "100 years of war in Iraq:"

Sir,

I am decidedly not a fan of McLame but I must say that you are doing a disservice to your readers when you perpetuate the notion of 100 years of occupation in Iraq. I am certain he spoke of a "presence," as we have a "presence" in Korea.

Actually, Huggy Bear said we may have troops in Iraq for 100 years. Perhaps strictly speaking that isn't "war," and so to that extent I retract my earlier statement. But it certainly is, or could be, "occupation," and besides, we haven't seen any evidence that the "occupation" wouldn't include regular skirmishes that would be tantamount to war.

Either way, our involvement in Iraq was and is completely unnecessary. I don't wish to compare it to Korea, which has and had its own problems (as a "police action" by many accounts), but there is no doubt that our reasons for being in Iraq are based on lies or personal vendetta or both -- not in any way sufficient to justify a war or an occupation of 100 days, let alone 100 years.

So, I did not mean to mislead by using the word "war." But I don't think anyone can show that 100 years of occupation wouldn't include 100 years of needless deaths, either.