This article by Josh Marshall is interesting for more than his conclusions. He doesn't like the "neocon" cowboys who want to go after Saddam, because they don't couch their arguments in "details about Iraq, geopolitics, or anything else," other than compelling logic.

It seems to me that the careful, thoughtful people who have all kinds of detail, history, geopolitics, etc. to support their cautious approaches, often are so bogged down by what's on the other hand that they end up dithering in the face of things like the Serbian atrocities in Bosnia, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland by the Nazis.

The essence of heroism is that one knows all the bad things that could happen if one attacks, but one does it anyway because it is right. There are times when we have to grit our teeth and watch helplessly as evil has its way, but it should always be harder to do than acting. Clinton's dealings with bin Laden are an example of how the intellectual approach ends up costing more in the end.

Once you're satisfied that you've considered all the angles, there isn't any point to continuing to examine the options. You have to decide and then act. Bush 41 was successful in the Gulf War, because his gut told him "This shall not stand," and he went to work. But when he let diplomatic considerations persuade him to call off the destruction of the Iraqi army, he blew it and assured his loss of a second term. Americans have a strong sense of what is right and what looks like cowardice.

To me, all one has to do is look at the videos of Halabja, the Kurdish town attacked by Saddam with mustard gas. That has its own logic that says we have to act. Let the career military men plan the campaign, the rest of us only need to know that he needs to be destroyed, the sooner the better.