Journalist-in-Residence at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)
Pro to the question "Should the US Have Attacked Iraq?"
"In the current zero-tolerance scheme, President Bush should have done nothing about Saddam until he had full U.N. backing, until he could guarantee a war in which no one would die, and until he had a clockwork plan for transition that within the year could draw forth from Baathist-devastated Iraq a gracefully sustained and peaceful democracy. Maybe on Venus they've developed policies of such perfection. But not on Earth, not in this life.
In all likelihood, the best way to prepare for a post-Saddam Iraq would have been to bust Saddam a lot sooner--giving Saddam himself a lot less time to prepare for a post-Saddam Iraq...
The need was to introduce into the Middle East the revolutionary idea (in theory and practice) that a tyrant could fall and be replaced by something better. Setting this in motion was a risk; not to do it would have been a greater risk. And although it is beyond the power of any of us to predict with perfect accuracy all outcomes, there has been a force set in motion in Iraq that may yet, given time, bring the Middle East into better alignment- if not with the stars, then at least with the Free World."
"Saddam Is From Mars. Is Kerry From Venus?," OpinionJournal.com, June 2, 2004