Last weekend I spotted this cartoon over at Michelle's site. If you don't feel like clicking, I'll just describe it: it shows a sleeping American child, smiling as he dreams of Santa Claus, and a sleeping Iraqi child, quivering in fear as he dreams of his house being bombed.

As I read it, I found myself neither angry, nor appalled, nor anything other than resigned. Yes, the children are probably afraid of that. But they are probably afraid of a good deal more than that. Yet if it were a Kurdish child, one doubts the dream would be the same as the poor Iraqi child depicted in the cartoon.

I'm beyond wanting to debate. The presumption of some people will forever and ever be that those of us who favor armed liberation are heedless of he horrors war brings. Or we love the thought of frightening and killing children. Or we're caught up in nationalist fervor or whatever. Fine. I accept that I can never convince certain people that it's not the case, or that they can ever be convinced that there can be moral justification for violence.

So here is my question, and I'm open to answer from anyone:

We are currently running "no fly zones" over Northern and Southern Iraq specifically to prevent Saddam Hussein from bombing the Kurds and other peoples in those areas. If we stop, he will be free to attack them at will.

My question is: let's say we do not go forward and finally eliminate this man, and put in place a regime that we know to be more humane. Should we continue these no-fly zones indefinitely?

Without engaging in history over why we should have done this or that differently 10 years ago, let's talk about what we have today. Can we simply turn around and leave the region? Would that be the most humane thing? While we're at it, should we drop the economic sanctions?

I'm not sure why I'm asking this. But I really want to know. What would be the most humane option, if not finally taking out the dictator and helping the people over there establish something like a real democracy?