Tom Friedman's column today claims that Americans don't support a war against Iraq, as though the people who call into radio programs where he is a guest are a respresentative sample of all Americans. He writes:

The most oft-asked question I heard was some variation of: "How come all of a sudden we have to launch a war against Saddam? I realize that he's thumbed his nose at the U.N., and he has dangerous weapons, but he's never threatened us, and, if he does, couldn't we just vaporize him? What worries me are Osama and the terrorists still out there."

What worries me is that phrase, "if he does, couldn't we just vaporize him?" It seems to say, "Let's see how many of us he kills first before we do anything about it." With responsible nations, that point makes sense, but Saddam is crazy. He might be deterrable, but I don't think we should bet New York or Washington, D. C., or even Tel Aviv, on it.

Secondly, wouldn't the same people who wring their hangs over attacking Iraq now also oppose "vaporizing" it? We've heard so much about millions of Iraqis being killed by the oil embargo. How does this square with killing many more with nuclear weapons? I think an attack now, to make sure that his weapons are destroyed and that he never gets nukes is far more humane that letting him go on.