Christopher Hitchens has some questions for opponents of removing Saddam last year.

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Yawn.

Sounds like you are getting desperate, Rand:-) The WMDs have not been found, and nor is there any direct evidence of a Baathist/Al Qaeda link. The "embarrassing" evidence of Franco-German-Russian meddling in Iraq largely hasn't surfaced either. Iraq is slowly going down the drain and the so-called "coalition of the willing" is getting smaller. Meanwhile, fellow pro-war liberarian blogger Andrew Sullivan seems to be getting in (finally) after reports that domestic Muslims were caught red-handed planning a terrorist attack in England WITHOUT ANY KIND OF SUPPORT FROM SADDAM/AL QAEDA WHATSOEVER. Over to Sullivan:

Here's where some war critics surely have a point. Fighting back aggressively can and will increase the numbers of alienated young men across the globe eager to kill in the name of anti-Western Islamism. The answer, of course, is not to give in or appease. (There were plenty of such alienated men around to do serious damage before we responded adequately.) But it is to fight back boldly with the military, create a democratic space in the Muslim Midle East, and work to foil terror quietly, subtly and powerfully behind the scenes. It's war, democratization and law enforcement. And Joe Nye is right (stopped clocks sometimes are). Soft power and hard power need not be self-canceling. They can aid each other. The strongest argument for Kerry is that we have already gained as much as we can for the time being with hard power and war; he won't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he won't be able to duck a serious response to another terror attack; but he might help ease some of the hatred of the United States that this president has - undeservedly, in my view, but still undeniably - ratcheted to unseen levels. The strongest argument against him is that he will not take the war seriously enough to allow law enforcement to play its vital but complementary part, and would prematurely pull out of Iraq. I'm waiting to hear more from him and his advisers. Yeah: don't rush me. It's March. Is this a rationalization for considering Kerry? Or a reason? I blog. You decide.

So what is wrong with the "Shrub" worldview? Countless things of course, but most of all the idea that the biggest threat comes from leaders of "rogue states" rather than enraged individuals acting on their own or as members of loosely defined international organizations. In fact, state sponsorship of Islamic terrorism has been increasingly less important since the end of the Cold War. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria...who cares? The real problem is bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers. Individuals who are now becoming increasingly energized as a result of the current President's foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq. It sure didn't make Madrid a safer place to be, and nor will it make America any safer.

MARCU$

So, you've developed amnesia, have you Marcu$??

"The WMDs have not been found, and nor is there any direct evidence of a Baathist/Al Qaeda link. The "embarrassing" evidence of Franco-German-Russian meddling in Iraq largely hasn't surfaced either."

On the first, you've already tried to make that point and been soundly shot down time after time (especially as regards the Saddam/terrorism link, which has mountains of documentary evidence). You embarrass yourself by continuing to flog that particular dead horse. Come on, quit allowing yourself to be mentally enslaved to the naive delusional neo-Marxist Euroview and think for yourself.

On the second, this is a profound falsehood. It was the French oil companies profiteering in the UN Oil-for-Palaces program. It was French arms merchants colluding with Saddam to illegally supply him with weapons practically until the very start of combat. And, gee, who was it that supplied Saddam with the equipment for his feeble attempt to jam GPS signals???

As for your last paragraph, exactly what is your program for dealing with these individuals?? Would you have us bow and scrape most apologetically before the Jihadists and perhaps offer up Israel as a sacrifice to appease them? (For that is surely the tacit approach of many of our so-called friends in Europe. The same attitude that preceded Kristallnacht.) I fully agree that we must hunt down and either capture or exterminate these dogs & swine, but they must exist on some piece of land that is part of some nation. And one doesn't come by the finances and supplies the Jihadists have without it coming from some nation somewhere. Where a nation cannot effectively extend it's government to all areas, we need to help and they need to cooperate. But where a nation in fact provides aid & comfort to the Jihadists, then they are our enemy (Yes, mine AND YOURS!). Because, like it or not, the Jihadists have but one creed -- that all the world should become Islamic. And those that don't are infidels, less than human, not entitled to the same rights as adherents to the Jihadist brand of the Islamic faith. (Note that they also are perfectly willing to label other Muslims as infidels or heretics if they are not in 100% agreement with the Jihadists.) There is NO reasoning or negotiating, no half way to meet them at. Make no mistake, this is a battle for the very existence of the civilized world.

- Eric.