One of the striking weaknesses of the anti-war movement has been their inability to offer what I consider legitimate alternatives to using force to disarm Iraq. While at least some of them acknowledge that "Saddam is bad" and that allowing Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the world their solutions rely on vague commitments to "further diplomacy", "letting the inspectors have more time", or "containment". Why these actions would succeed now after failing miserably for the last twelve years is not explained nor is a vision presented of where these processes might leave us a year from now if we opt for them rather than military action.
Today's featured article at OpinionJournal.com (you have to register with your e-mail address to view it) speculates on what the situation might look like a year from now if Saddam is not disarmed and it's not a pretty picture. A strengthened Saddam once again looks at building nuclear weapons, Tony Blair is removed from office, Iran's democracy movement is crushed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets worse, India and Pakistan move closer to war, nuclear proliferation spreads around the world, and perhaps most ominously of all the French gain more global clout (sacre bleu!). Sure it's a worst case scenario but it's also a damn convincing argument for war and it's laid out in a more concrete manner than anything I've seen from the other side.