The March on the Pentagon, this past weekend, was a profound educational experience for me – and on a number of levels.

The most powerful thing I walked away with was a clearer picture of war supporters.

I don’t mean the average joe, casual, ‘I voted for Bush so I have to stand behind him’ Republicans; but rather the die hard, dedicated, ‘dissension equals treason’ war supporters.

I talk about the war in Iraq with a lot of people. Most are against it, but some are for it.

Of those, it’s hard to get many of them past the bumper sticker arguments and indignant insults; but every once in a while, someone will be open to the idea of a reasonable discussion.

Here’s the big three points I’ve taken from them:

Like it or not, we’re dependent on foreign oil, and have to have both stability and some degree of control, lest our economy suffer dramatically.

If there were an alternative to military conflict and occupation to achieve that, we’d surely do it; but history has shown us that there is no other way.

This viewpoint is (usually admittedly) pragmatic and capitalistic, without regard to the pain and suffering that results.

Thems the breaks. Sorry.

Saddam was a tyrant. The world is better off without him.

To be fair, most people that put forth this argument also believe that we should be involved in Darfur and other oppressive countries.

While that’s certainly the right sentiment, tyrancy is a slippery thing.

Some would call George W. Bush a tyrant, based on his disregard of civil liberties and his unwillingness to bow to the will of the electorate.

Many believed Abd al-Karim Qasim to be a tyrant. Who’s that, you say? He was an Iraqi Colonel that murdered then King Faisal II, along with his entire family, to seize power in Iraq and form an alliance with the Soviet Union.

He was such an awful man, that the United States government attempted to assassinate him twice – both times, enlisting the aid of a young school teacher named Saddam Hussein.

One man’s tyrant is another man’s hero.

The terrorists are there. Whether they were there before or not doesn’t matter, they are there now, and we have to deal with it. We can’t just pack up and leave now.

Some of the people that offer this argument attempt to reinforce it with some sort of “in hindsight, we shouldn’t have gone in there to begin with.” But those that do always stop short of wanting to hold the Bush administration accountable for that.

Now, I generally lump these in with the “we’ve sacrificed too much to just leave” crowd. There’s clearly more thought going into the “we broke it, so we own it” argument; but the lack of validity remains the same.

Think of it like this: A person still hangs on to the 1,000 shares of Yahoo stock he bought ten years ago at $250 (currently trading at around $30), believing that it will one day hit $300 again.

The big part of his brain – along with everyone he knows – tells him that he is a fool to think that will ever happen. However, since he blew his entire retirement savings on that thousand shares, he feels like he’s sacrificed too much to walk away now.

Never mind that he could have sold it, reinvested it and made back what he lost.

It’s the same thing in Iraq, only it’s country and were trading in people’s lives.

It’s time stop chasing our losses.

Then there’s the rest of the uglier pro-war crowd.

Yes, I called them “pro-war,” because that’s exactly what they are.

They are also mostly male, almost exclusively white and seem to demonstrate bigoted tendencies. In fact, if we weren’t so busy fighting the Arabs right now, they’d want us to fight the Mexicans.

There’s no reasoning with these people. Theirs is an entirely emotional perspective, fueled by feelings of fear and frustration over their lot in life.

Finally, there are the walking wounded. They are the Vietnam veterans that have led lives of pain and suffering for the past forty years.

The worst are the ones that were never physically injured. The ones that just went home.

The government they defend is the same government that abandoned them, but they are convinced that the reason for their pain is the deterioration of public support for the war by the peace movement. That’s why we lost. That’s why they were brought home to be left behind.

None of that is true, but that’s their perception, their reality. And they don’t want to see another generation of young men and women have to go through that.

I have nothing but compassion for these heroes. They fought bravely abroad, believing they were securing our liberty for future generations. And despite being told that everything they’ve gone through was for a mistake – for nothing – they stand up at home to try and defend that future generation from the suffering they’ve experienced. I honor them.

Unfortunately, like the Bush administration, they mis-identify the enemy. And sadly, there’s little that can be said to convince them otherwise. It’s like trying to convince a pit-bull vicitm that the real threat is the owner.

There is hope, though. At the march in DC, one of the Gathering of Eagles members crossed the street and carried his US flag across the bridge with us.

I don’t know what it was that brought him over. Maybe it was the diversity that more accurately reflected the America he fought for. Maybe it was the impassioned speeches by the Iraq war veterans and their families. Maybe it was the ugliness of many of those around him.

Whatever it was, his mind was opened to the possibility of being opposed to the President’s policy at home, while at the same time supporting the soldiers abroad.

And that’s how we’ll eventually prevail – one person at a time.