Christopher Hitchens has a brilliant piece
that makes the case for a war in Iraq in very clear terms.
One point he raises is something I’ve found lately. No matter what the evidence, no matter how one states the case, there are those who will never approve of a war against Iraq. There are those who feel that any action by the US is inherently immoral, and that we would be better off if there was no US.
Then there are those who don’t necessarily feel that the US is all bad, but will not be convinced of Saddam’s threat until New York City lies in ruins, by which the damage will have already been done.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there are some who will never be swayed by the evidence. They remain stuck in a world in which we must knowtow to rogue states like Iraq, that it is better to remain passive than to act, and that we must consider the "root causes" of why the Arab world hates us. As Satayana would say, these are the people who have failed to learn from history.
Why must we fight in Iraq? Because if we don’t take out Saddam now, we may never have the chance to do so. Once he gains control of a nuclear device, he becomes virtually bulletproof. That is not acceptable for the interests of peace. We must do everything in our power to prevent that nightmare scenario, and the best and only way is to remove him from power.
