Right Hook JJ McCullough, OP Columnist I don’t think I will ever regret supporting the invasion of Iraq. Deposing one of the 20th Century’s most psychopathic tyrants remains a proud achievement, and within the context of the time, the potential benefits of such a war seemed to far outweigh the prospective down- sides. That being said, times have clearly changed. It has now become painfully obvious that a number of assumptions I, and countless other war proponents made regarding the presumed outcomes of the invasion were at best blindly utopian, and at worst ignorantly naive. While it’s still far too early to write-off the entire war as a fundamental failure, at the very least it now seems that many of the key intellectual justifications for making Iraq the new front in the larg- er War on Terror were the product of deeply flawed reasoning. In the lead-up to the Irag invasion one of the most fashionable theories among the pro- war set was the belief that Islamic terrorism was basically a byproduct of Islamic frustration. Muslim citizens of the world were annoyed at their corrupt governments, crippling poverty, and western indifference, it was said. Only in such a maddened state of desperation and anger had they turned to the embrace of Islamic radicals and their simplistic revenge fantasies. The Bush doctrine was supposed to fix all this. As the now-infamous slogan went, if the US and its allies could simply free the people of Iraq from its hated dictatorship, such soldiers would surely be greeted as heroic liberators. The Middle East needed to be shown that we in the west were on the side of the Arab people, and with Iraq as the fist domino, the West could finally help transform the nations of the region into the liberal, democratic societies we assumed their citizens desired. The lengthy Iraqi insurgency that followed has seemed to prove otherwise, however. ‘Though countless Iraqis do seem genuinely pleased with democracy and are willing to risk their lives to go to the polls, many, many others seem to care less about improving their country’s infrastructure than blowing up infidels. The sheer murderous resilience of the Iraqi terrorists— whose suicide attacks continue without interruption— seems to cast doubt on any sort of immediate correlation between more democracy and less terrorism. In fact, the introduction of Science Matters David Suzuki, David Suzuki Foundation ‘ava Scientists sometimes call them “charismatic megafauna,” but most people would just say they’re cute and fuzzy. Certain animals like bears, tigers, and the great apes have become poster children for the environment because for many people these animals symbolize the beauty and majesty of all nature. Steve Irwin was not one of those people. Mr. Irwin, the famous Crocodile Hunter, was illed by a stingray earlier this month while diving off the coast of Australia. He became amous, not for showing the world the cutest and cuddliest of creatures, but for highlighting ose that terrify us the most — crocodiles, snakes, spiders, and other creepy crawlies. I’m currently in Australia on a book tour and was scheduled to meet up with Mr. Irwin in October. Sadly, that meeting will now never take place and I will miss out on spending ime with someone for whom I feel a great deal of kinship and respect. Growing up in Canada, my passion and my playground was a swamp near my home. here, I waded through cattails to catch frogs, fish, spiders, snakes and anything else I ould get my hands on. I was utterly fascinated by these creatures and had a burning curios- ity to find out what they did, how they lived, what they ate and what ate them. I would not be surprised if Mr. Irwin had similar experiences as a child. Both of us seem o like things that others might call ugly or dirty. To us, they are all beautiful. Certainly, I understand why people gravitate towards the most charismatic, loveable reatures. It can even be beneficial and educational. Piquing people’s interest in the envi- onment with the world’s most charismatic creatures may start them on the road to under- tanding and respect for all of nature. After all, March of the Penguins would never have ecome the international sensation that it did had it been called Flight of the Turkey Vulture. opinionsubmit@hotmail.com a democracy to the Middle East has proved to raised all sorts of new headaches, the least o which is ensuring that the worst of the radicals aren’t actually e/ected into office, as the Hat managed to do in Palestine. Of all the sins committed by tyrants like Saddam and Arafat, astonishing that the dictators’ overt secularism is the legacy their people have been most } to abolish. Just as the theory that Iraqi’s were discontent with a lack of democracy has been dispt the theory that terrorism is a byproduct of poverty has also collapsed. It’s not widely men tioned, but many Muslim countries actually boast GDPs (Gross Domestic Product) that a comparatively high by third-world standards. Most men and women in Egypt, Saudi Arab and Iran, for example enjoy a considerably higher standard of living than the majority of dents in Central America, and almost all of Africa. There’s no real reason to believe that € if the nations of the Middle East were as wealthy and urbanized as, say, Europe or North America, their residents would be any less prone to militancy. Indeed, such a conclusion is made all the more obvious when we consider that European or American-born Muslims < to be just as prone to hatching terrorist schemes as those residing in the Middle East. This summer alone, authorities have quelled two massive terrorist plots in both the UE Canada. Both conspiracies included younger, middle-classed men with post secondary edu tion. Far from being exceptions to the rule, their biographies were little different than the hijackers themselves, some of whom came from exceedingly wealthy families and held ma degrees. At the heart of all this may be a simple but unpleasant fact about certain circles of Isl: society. Maybe no amount of wealth, urbanization, and education will be enough to shak some from perverted doctrines of hate and murder. Maybe we’ve seen the limits of our o hopeless attempts at imposing activists solutions to their diseases. Maybe the only real soh is to simply embrace the grim stalemate of living in a permanent state of heightened secu The time for optimism may be over. But that’s precisely what made Steve Irwin’s role so important. True, he often wer after the spectacular creatures himself — just not the pretty ones. At least, not pretty tc most people. He went after the ones that were either unknown or vilified, and hunted d despised by most of humanity. He’s been criticized for doing this simply for the rush, < to feed his ego. In doing so, he put the spotlight on creatures that would have otherwis been seen by the general populace only in our nightmares. Every creature has a role to play in an ecosystem. Ugly, dirty, and microscopic on are often the most important. It has been said that humans could disappear off the plan and the rest of nature would flourish and thrive, but if ants disappeared, the natural wo would be thrown into chaos. Humanity will not protect that which we fear or do not understand. Steve Irwin he us understand those things that many people thought were a nuisance at best, a horror worst. That made him a great educator and conservationist. At a time when interest in basics of science, like taxonomy — the discovery and classification of living things — i waning in favour of high-tech fields, it’s a role that will be sorely missed. Famed Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson coined the term “biophilia,” meanin innate love and kinship for other biological creatures. Mr. Irwin had it in spades and hi wanted to share it with the world. It was his enthusiasm for life on this planet that mac him so remarkable. Steve Irwin may not have focused on the charismatic megafauna o world, but the world clearly saw many of those same characteristics in him.