I was listening to the debates in Congress on the Presidents Iraq resolution. Apparently, the position of the anti-invasion Democrats is shaping up along these lines: If we attack Saddam Hussein, he'll do everything in his power to attack us back, including using the resources at his disposal (chemical and biological weapons) to strike at innocent American civilians on these shores.

This is based on the testimony of a CIA operative who testified earlier (I didn't hear it) saying that at this point, Saddam is unlikely to strike because he fears retaliation. But, if we were to invade, he'd have no reason to hold back.

This is wrong for so many reasons. First off, it's an acknowledgement of the fact that Saddam has capabilities despite eleven years of UN resolutions aimed at preventing him from acquiring or having those capabilities. So, Saddam is a threat. Not just regionally, but certainly to his neighbors. Second, is it good foreign policy to basically say that Saddam Hussein is one badass muthafugga and we are staying away from his corner? Surely that would only serve to bolster that despot's willingness to be the aggressor, even more so than he has been until now.

War is a terrible, terrible thing. Peace is a wonderful thing. Hate war. Love peace. But when war is the only availabe measure, we've got to step up to the plate. Especially with the possibility of establishing democratic governments in a part of the world where they're noticeably absent. I wish there were other options, but I don't think there are. Doing whatever is necessary to bring about a regime change in Iraq is the only course of action that makes sense, and I think the scandalously weak arguments being presented by opponents of that move make that abundantly clear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------