Saddam is determined to get nuclear weapons and it is certain that he already has chemical and biological weapons. Left unchecked, he will acquire all three, of that there is no question to anyone who has dealt with him. Given his 11 year history of reneging on his agreement to allow inspections it borders on absurd to demand that weapons inspection be given another chance. And given his 11 year history of hiding weapons and facilities it is patently absurd to place the burden of proof on the U.N. to show that he has or might acquire what we think he has. Saddam lost the benefit of the doubt a long long time ago. He is smart enough to keep this game up indefinitely so long as we continue to play by his rules.

Weapons inspection has so far severely hindered, though not nearly stopped, Saddam's acquisition of WMD. However, the effectiveness of this program is diminished every time Saddam violates the inspection protocol and the U.N. doesn't punish him in any way. The threat of violence is the only way to force Saddam to let inspectors into the country in the first place. Eventually, if Saddam continues to violate the rules set out, violence has to be applied or it is no longer a real threat. And without that threat weapons inspections are an impossibility. This cycle of inaction must, unfortunately for all involved, be broken at some point.

WAR ON IRAQ
"Through our own mistakes, the perfidy of others, and Saddam's cunning, the Unites States is left with few good policy options toward Iraq, and increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam, eradicate his weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society...."

The most important thing to remember when contemplating a move as serious as war is that not just any war will do. In addition to commitments to rebuilding the country and the government and countless other considerations, a war waged on Iraq at this point must be big and powerful--victory must be all but certain. Failure would be catastrophic. And the U.S. has hemmed and hawed for so long with Iraq that the surest way to get no support for a war effort is to keep hemming and hawing. Granted, a large and decisive attack would still have plenty of detractors, but not nearly as many as another half-hearted attack.

Bombing alone will not work. The bombing in Kosovo and Afghanistan was intended as an aid to the native opposition groups to carry out the overthrow of the government themselves. But there is no organized native opposition in Iraq. Saddam's reign of terror has been too pervasive. And the autonomous Kurds in the north can't be counted on because the U.S. and the U.N. have stood by while Baghdad massacred Kurds on four occasions since 1970, and the U.S. has backed out of several joint operations with them in the past. The U.S.and