[jyl]

When I was growing up, the antiwar protesters of the 60's were my heros. I've always wanted a chance to wear the white hat, to feel self-righteous, to question authority, to protest an unjust war.

I also hate George Bush. I despise his policies, think he's botching the economy, see his Republicans hacking away at personal freedoms, environmental protections, international cooperation, etc etc.

Yet I have reluctantly decided that Saddam has to be removed and that a war is the only practical way to do it.

Saddam is a man who has developed (and used) chemical weapons, will acquire nuclear weapons if given enough time, will similarly develop delivery mechanisms, and sits in the middle of one of the most sensitive areas of the globe. No, he won't do this in a year, or two, not while inspectors crawl over Iraq - but the U.N. doesn't have staying power and we can't leave 200K troops poised in the desert forever. Eventually the world will lose interest, and then what? Saddam's kicked the inspectors out before, and he'll do it again.

When Saddam has nuclear-tipped missiles, how are we going to stop him from funding terrorists and providing them with conventional and chemical weapons? From threatening Israel, Turkey, Saudi? From tripling the price of oil and crashing world capital markets every time he fires a test missile? From beoming the de facto leader of the radical Muslim world - a bin Laden with A-bombs?

Answer: the same way we are able to stop North Korea - in other words, we won't be able to. We can't do a damn thing about Kim the Paranoid, because he has 2 or 3 nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them with. So we (and the Japanese,and South Koreans, etc) have to give him billions in aid, build him new nuclear reactors, beg him to sign agreements, watch him tear them up . . . if you wonder what Iraq under Saddam will be like in 10 years, look at North Korea.

That's why I think we have to invade Iraq. It's not pretty, it doesn't feel good, it will trigger terrorist retaliation and global anti-Americanism. But I haven't heard of an alternative that has a high enough probability of working. Inspections, containment, diplomacy - there's lots of peaceful schemes that have maybe a 50% chance of working. 50% is not good enough for something this serious.

Let's do it, get it over with, take the inevitable consequences, and move on. Hopefully I'll see George kicked out of office anyway. My bet is that the economy will do it, because the problems with the economy run much deeper than Saddam. But on this issue, and this issue only, I reluctantly agree with the Administration.

P.S.: I do, however, think that George W has himself to blame for much of the resistance and hostility he's getting from the Europeans. When you spend the first two years of your Presidency disrespecting the Europeans (trashing the Kyoto agreements, picking tariff fights via the WTO, treating Mexico as more important than NATO) you become very unpopular in Europe. European politicians get rewarded for opposing you (how did Gerard Schroeder win re-election?) And when you really need Europe's support, you find that you have no political or goodwill capital.

P.P.S.: I re-read this, and realize that it's a bit of a rant. Sorry about that. I've agonized a lot over this and if I sound frustrated, that's because I am. Not easy for a Berkeley liberal to support the war.