While the news media’s hyperventilation over the military’s supposed “operational pause” is certainly overblown, it is clear that the war in Iraq hasn’t played out as perfectly as its supporters had hoped. But the war will be won soon, and probably without too many casualties on either side, all things considered. At least we hope so.

But even assuming that conquering Iraq and ousting the Hussein regime remains a piece of cake, if not a cakewalk, for American military might, building a peaceful democratic republic in Iraq may prove to be more of a challenge.

The question may yet be whether most Iraqis, in spite of their gratitude for U.S. help in overthrowing Hussein’s regime, will welcome Americans as liberators rather than as occupiers. It’s a risky proposition.

As Steve Chapman pointed out in his column yesterday, nationalism is still a very powerful force. It is, he argues, the one universal that may yet overpower the attractiveness of participatory government. Indeed, national self-determination and democracy often go hand in hand.

What we are engaging in here is essentially a new colonolialism. No, I don’t think it is intended to exploit Iraq’s oil. But it is a benevolent attempt at helping the Iraqis help themselves and purportedly make the United States and the world safer in the process.

But the truth is we have no idea how our efforts will be received. American peacekeeping forces in Iraq may be targets of terrorism. Iraqis may, fairly or not, perceive the U.S.’s deep involvement in the government of their daily affairs as exploitation rather than education.

It’s a fine line between nation building and nation bullying. Who knows what side of the line we’ll wind up on? And even if Iraqis are happy, how will the rest of the Middle East view matters? They are already lied to by government-controlled news media.

Even if things go swimmingly, chances are that, in the long term, our short-term occupation (assuming it is short) will be not viewed favorably, and will indeed serve as greater ammunition for terrorist reprisals on American soil and American forces in the Middle East.

All of this might well be worth the risk — after all, nothing in war is guaranteed — if the threat were real and imminent. In this case it manifestly is not. This is an elective war. One that might make us ever-so-marginally safer, but which has the potential to make us much worse off. I hope all goes well. I fear it won’t. And the gap between those two leaves me confused … and angry.

… and what the heck did Daley do to it?

Check this link to the Friends of Meigs Web site, which has the latest news.

The war’s got him down.

In other exciting aviation news, the Tribune’s Jon Hilkevitch got his hands on a study soon to be released by Ricondo & Associates which says that Daley’s expanded O’Hare would result in more delays, especially in bad weather.

Why? Because even if you build out the airport, once the number of flights increases to the projected 1.6 million you’re just going to wind up with more delays. Further, one whole new runway would be completely useless in any kind of bad weather, according to the report.

This is exactly what the much-maligned Sen. Peter Fitzgerald has been saying all along about the Daley-Ryan expansion plan, but nobody paid any attention. By sheer luck were we spared this travesty, thanks to Fitzgerald’s opposition in the Senate and the aviation industry’s self-destruction since Sept. 11.

Tribune columnists John Kass (politics) and Blair Kamin (architecture) both had good things to say today about Da Mare’s outrageous, midnight raid on Meigs Field.

Kass, in “Daley’s abuse of power leaves marks on city“:

This is not a complicated story of insider deals, of contracts, connections, of documented paper trails.

Rather, it is simple, with photographs, something TV is interested in watching: the destruction of a valuable resource simply because it was in Daley’s way, and because he knew no one could stop him.

Little Big Man finally revealed himself as the absolute boss ruling Chicago and Cook County with wrought-iron fists.

Kamin, in “Land grabs don’t get any more naked than this“:

Noble ends don’t justify ignoble means.

As much as I believe that Meigs should become a park, the way Daley has gone about it stinks as badly as the nose-wrinkling stench that once wafted out of the Union Stockyards.

If you ever doubted that all the important urban planning decisions in Chicago are made by a democratically elected monarch whose throne is on the fifth floor of City Hall, then what happened Sunday night — when backhoes appeared at 11 p.m. and jabbed giant Xs in Meigs’ runway — should erase your doubts forever.

My friend Chuck endorses a truly terrible idea in Minnesota to force protesters to pay the extra costs associated with their actions — police enforcement, redirecting traffic, etc.

While the libertarian impulse behind such a position is understandable — protesters should have to pay for the costs they impose on others — the problem is that they already have in the form of taxes. Just because they choose to exercise their free-speech rights does not mean they should be liable to pay more on top of that.

By that logic, those who don’t protest or demonstrate in any way should receive a tax discount of some kind. If someone obstructs traffic or does anything unlawful, he should be arrested. That is the punishment. Forcing people to pay for the right to protest would have the express purpose of discouraging speech.