In the last column, we covered possible outcomes of a preemptive strike to effect regime change in Iraq. Although some of the possibilities are dire, the overall risk vs. benefits seems to fall in favor of acting.

What are the risks of not acting?

	Saddam could continue to sponsor terrorism unmolested and give us new dates to set along side of September 11.
	Other despots could be encouraged by inaction and also attack the U.S.
	Saddam could obtain chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and strike preemptively against us, either directly or through terrorists.
	The U.S. could lose a city or several through inaction.
	Radical Islamism will continue to rise, both in the Middle East and in western countries, such as Canada, Germany, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
	The tension caused by this state of talking about attacking adversely affects the economy as the waiting frays nerves. The longer this is drawn out, the longer the economy slumps as people postpone buying because of uncertainties.
	Oil prices could continue to rise as people worry about shortages and our Middle Eastern “allies” don’t fear to pull our tails.
	The world economy tanks because of tension and rising oil prices.
	A few U.S. soldiers don’t die immediately, so that many more civilians and soldiers may die when Saddam gets totally unmanageable.
	The government saves money by not having a war, but it all evaporates because of the tanking economy.

Waiting or not acting has no real benefits to offset risks while the risks of action are dwarfed by potential benefits. Even the most pessimistic results of acting leave us no worse off than if we don’t act.

Given this analysis so in favor of action, why would anyone be against acting? The first possibility, of course, is that I am just blatantly prejudiced toward action and am blind to the benefits of inaction making this whole analysis as one-sided as I claim theirs are. A second possibility is that others might not see all of these factors and understand history, human nature, and economics as well as I do, so that their blindness and ignorance lead them down the path so well paved by Neville Chamberlain. Here are some other thoughts:

	Opposition Party Members-Members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. probably realize that a successful war with a Republican president in the spotlight will not help them in mid-term elections. Rather than acting in the best interests of the country, they are opposing Republican actions hoping to stave off the damage until after elections.
	Foreign Dignitaries-There are several categories of these. Some are covered in the despot category below. Another group are those under voter pressure at home, such as in Germany, which is about to have an election. The Chancellor has to win with a lot of Turks and liberals in the country who would be upset were he sounding hawkish. After the election, he may change his tune. Others are of the liberal species that can be summed up as, “Emotions good, thinking bad.” They are upset because of the sanctions hurting the Iraqi children and believe that Saddam is an honorable man. Most liberals have trouble recognizing honor. Like independent thoughts, they’ve never had any themselves.
	Gloomy Economists-No one wants to make a wrong prediction. If one makes correct upbeat predictions, so what. The safe bet is to make a doomful prediction. If they are right, they will be remembered. So, even with contrary evidence from the Gulf War, they forecast doom if we attack Iraq.
	Those who stand to lose if Iraq becomes a democratic country-Among these latter are the kings, sheiks, and presidents-for-life who rule the Arab world. If Saddam goes, how secure are they?

Understanding why someone is not looking at the whole picture is often more enlightening than just knowing what the whole picture is. President Bush, the United States, and her allies need to act on Iraq. They need to act swiftly, steadfastly, and soon. Saddam deserves no more chances and needs no more time to work on his weapons programs and prepare for the attack.

President Bush won’t act as soon as he should. He is such an honorable man that he won’t attack before the elections and use the war as a tool against the Democrats, while President Clinton never hesitated to bomb a Chinese Embassy when he needed attention refocused.