For those who oppose the military action against Iraq, ask yourself why we have reached this point.
The answer is not that George Bush is an illiterate cowboy unduly influenced by oil interests, Jewish money and advisers, and a desire to avenge the failures of his father.
Dismissing those on the extreme left and right, almost everyone supports the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with U.N. resolutions, the difference being that some believe inspections were working and should have been given more time, while others believe they did not and cannot without a regime change.
Many who oppose military action now also opposed military action in 1991. Military action was required then because Saddam believed that if he played for enough time and if there were enough anti-war protests, there would be no military intervention.
If you believe inspections were working, ask yourself why they were when Saddam didn't even allow them in Iraq during the previous four years. If you are honest, you will admit that it is only because of a credible threat of military intervention. This is not to concede that such inspections can work. The paradox is that you and the French and their cohorts on the Security Council have so lessened the credibility of military action in the eyes of Saddam that military action against him is, once again, necessary.
Once again, he has grossly miscalculated the resolve of the American people and a president named Bush.
The writer is a Marine Corps veteran and retired lawyer.