Second guessing...

For those who criticize the War in Iraq, often without offering ideas as to what we should be doing in its stead, I suggest reading this Washington Post column.

Then, try answering some of its core questions:

What would have happened had we not gone into Iraq?

Was a war with Saddam inevitable? (Draw a comparison to the lives that would have been saved had Hitler been taken out in the 30's instead of the 40's)

For the Americans who are so concerned about human genocide (i.e. Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia...), weren't we essentially obligated to end the torture chambers in Iraq?

Is "containment" of a mass murderer an acceptable policy? (Draw analogy to North Korea here, a favorite example of the mis-directing left who claims we should abandon Iraq in favor of more aggressive policy towards Kim Jung Il. If a dictator only kills his own people, is it our business to stop him?)

Would Saddam have ever given up his quest for WMD, especially if the world lost focus on him while targeting China or North Korea for "sanctions" or "deterrants"?

As we now know, Saddam was involved in secret deals with leaders of several countries, as well as the United Nations' corrupted 'Oil for Food' program(me). Is it really believable that the will of the 'international community' to deter and punish Saddam would have sustained very long? In fact, when we invaded Iraq, was the resolve of the world strengthening or weakening on the issue of sanctioning Iraq? (analogy here to Iran, how well are sanctions working there? If our policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring WMD, is it smarter to invade before or after they obtain the weapons in usable form? Draw another analogy here to the pacifism of Jimmy Carter in reference to the Shah of Iran. How well did that policy work for the United States?)