Some people don't want to discuss the Iraq war in the context of Hurricane Katrina. I say it's appropriate. Why? Because Katrina, more than any other recent event in America, exposes one of the major problems with having such a large overseas military presence: Namely, that our military exists to protect our country -- not someone else's. Katrina also highlights something most Americans know: That it's time to kick our oil addiction. And something most Americans run from: That it's time to give serious thought to industrial hemp.

Two and a half years ago, we went to war under the impression that Iraq had WMDs. Protecting us was exactly what we thought our soldiers were doing. Now that it's clear Saddam didn't have weapons, the rationale for war has transformed into "bringing peace and democracy to the region." And that's a totally bogus reason for going to war. Our soldiers signed up to protect us, God bless 'em. They signed up to defend America. Not Japan. Not Germany. Not Iraq. But America. Old fashioned, country-music-lovin' America. People wonder: Why did New Orleans descend into chaos? Why weren't there enough choppers and soldiers to rescue stranded citizens and keep the order in the streets? Forget about whether these are fair criticisms. The questions alone are precisely why mentioning Iraq and Katrina in the same sentence is appropriate. Americans ought to be asking these questions. They ought to be asking why, in spite of rescue workers' efforts, our government stumbled as it went about doing the one thing it's supposed to do.

Mentioning Iraq and Katrina together is also appropriate because, as several news sources have reported, the federal funds New Orleans needed for overhauling its levees were diverted to pay for the war. Americans already understand that our adventure in Iraq is expensive. But they also need to understand that every penny spent there is a penny utterly wasted, since we didn't need to be there to begin with. Pride is a strong thing, and I understand the administration's reluctance to admit we were wrong about WMDs. But at this point, if they're not going to bring the troops home, they should at least be honest and tell us, "Look, we broke it, we bought it -- that's the reason we're still over there."

George Bush's pre-war ultimatum was simple: Saddam disarms, or we disarm him. This means that if Saddam had played ball with us (which, in a roundabout way, it turns out he did), we would've allowed him to stay in power. The rationale that the war "removed a brutal dictator" just doesn't cut it, then. We could've dealt with this guy diplomatically. We could've used incentives. Or we could've bribed one of his confidants to turn him in. Even for $80 billion -- an outstanding reward -- it would've cost less than the tens of billions in war-spending packages over the last few years. But instead, we decided we just had to have a war, and now funds that could've fixed or strengthened the New Orleans levees are off in Iraq somewhere, fueling a bogus war, while thousands of people sit side-by-side with dead bodies in a crumbling sports arena, withering away for lack of food, water, and hope.

In Philly a couple of years ago, a pier collapsed -- killing three and injuring others. The pier owners knew for years that the pier needed fixing. A maritime safety inspector pinpointed to the day that the pier would collapse. But they didn't feel like spending the money to fix it, and now three people are dead. That's what the New Orleans situation reminds me of. But the sad thing is, I almost can't blame the administration for diverting those levee funds. Politicians waste billions of dollars every year on pork barrel "public works" projects. Most of them are thinly-veiled ways to pander to constituents. Why should the feds have believed the levee-fixers any more than the politicians who want to fund insect museums? Why should a city that built itself below sea level get funds any faster than subsidized sex changes? We've all heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. In this case, that's what happened. And our political system deserves as much blame as the forces of nature for what's happening now.

Maybe the lesson to be learned from all this Katrina madness is that America desperately needs a cultural revolution -- before we get the bloody kind. New Orleans has descended into "anarchy" and "lawlessness." You've got people down there shooting rescue helicopters. You've got people looting not just food but television sets. It's tragic, but it comes from the same place -- the same heart of desperation -- that's led thousands of refugees to scream "HELP, HELP, HELP" in protest every time a camera comes by. This hurricane is a serious blow to the economy. Shipping on the Mississippi will suffer. Rumors of gas shortages will lead to gas shortages. People are angry the government has had a tough time feeding so many poor black New Orleanians. But moreover, people are angry the government cared more about Iraq than poor black New Orleanians to begin with. Americans are worried what will happen if war and oil collapse our entire economy. How can a distant, self-serving government help a country in need if it can't even help a city off the Gulf of Mexico? Suddenly, you start to realize why colonial Americans felt a British king didn't serve their needs. Because protectionist leaders thousands of miles away never do.

The time has come to start talking about changes. It's time to have a serious discussion on industrial hemp. That's a conversation that usually gets shut down as "not serious" and the "ramblings of stoners" whenever it begins. But hemp is a viable fuel source. It's renewable. It's clean. And it can be used in place of many synthetic, oil-based materials. So why isn't it legal? And why can't we have a simple discussion about it? The war on drugs is an insufficient answer. There are differences between the hemp you smoke and the hemp you use to make paper and clothes. You want to call it a zany stoner conspiracy theory? Fine. Call it a zany stoner conspiracy theory. But governments have been lining the pockets of business partners for centuries. Mercantilism happens in real life. Just look in a textbook. Or better yet, take a look around you. Look at gas prices. Look at how Katrina compounded the problem. Go beyond 9/11. Consider why we're in the Middle East to begin with. Then ask yourself why, with the crises we're facing, we'd fail to look at any alternative fuel source -- even the crackpot ones.

Whether Bush went to war to protect oil interests, we'll never really know. In the end, the real issue is that our government has gotten away from us. If Washington legalized hemp, it's conceivable that we wouldn't be overseas, fighting wars for our stake in the world's oil supply. It's conceivable that we wouldn't be overseas militarily at all. Our troops would be here, and our funds would be here, and America would be ready for problems like those in New Orleans. We would no longer anger the planet with our creeping imperial presence or high-pollutin' ways. We wouldn't have to worry about hurricanes knocking over half a dozen oil rigs. And unless someone dropped chemical weapons on our hemp crops -- which no one would do if we stayed out of their countries -- we wouldn't be lining up around the block for fuel.

But, hey, maybe hemp isn't the solution. It's hard to tell. Like WMDs, our government doesn't give us straight answers anymore.

So, yes, we can blame the mess in Iraq -- and the oversights in New Orleans -- on Bush, his oilman buddies, and the other military-industrial favorites who agitated for war in his crew. But the truth is, such blame is misdirected. Our problems date back to a time before most of those men were born. America's oil addiction is deep rooted. It's something that won't be easy to kick. But better we should kick it now than when the oil is gone and we're stranded like Louisianans on rooftops, waiting for aid that may or may not come. I suspect something worse than looters would happen at that time.