Solidarity is forever

People along the political spectrum have argued that the sadistic attacks in Bali Saturday can be traced to American involvement in Iraq. How is it that these deadly and depraved bombings induced many on the left to increase their criticisms of waging the war on terrorism and, no less dishonorably, provoked many on the right to go wobbly in the vigorous prosecution of the war? \nThe carnage in Bali calls into question the contentions of many war critics, that American foreign policy is askew because it angers its enemies. Ending Saddam's rule, detractors posit, has reversed rather than advanced the global war on terror. But here, as so often, they successfully contradict themselves. If inaugurating Iraqi consensual government is contrary to American interests, why are terrorists so intent to prevent that outcome? While it might be convenient to think of the recent bloodshed as an indictment of U.S. foreign policy, I am inclined to be skeptical. \nThose who were once content with Baghdad under Baathist rule still say, irrelevantly, that Saddam was not an "imminent" threat, or, naively, that "no connection" existed between Baathism and Bin Ladenism. But rarely do they deny that Saddam was an inevitable threat or that the Fedayeen Saddam was hardly the hallmark of a great secular Arab regime. The antiwar logic is, in truth, backward. The formation of a federal democracy in Iraq would make it a pro-American outpost of moderate Islam. This would prove intolerable for those psychotic killers who are now fighting tooth and nail against such an outpost. \nThe Bush administration was right in thinking that Saddam's overthrow would redound to the great benefit of the civilized world. But despite the well-built casus belli, many have defected, producing the impression that proponents of regime change, who once relished in taking the debate's moral high ground, have now ceded it voluntarily. \nI dissent. The case for action was unassailable. It is high time to counter the assumption that those of us who supported the war, instead of those who stood in the way, have any explaining to do. \nIn 1999, British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a speech in which he stated that war in the Balkans would not be the end of Anglo-American action against fascist dictators. It was obvious that trying to improve global order by "containment" of the most radical Arab state was delusional -- the craven answer of those who thought the war could be shirked, or worse, not worth fighting.\nTerrorism, in Bali or Baghdad, should never tempt us to retreat from the fight, only to finish it. Every bomb detonated to incinerate the innocent is reason to reaffirm our solidarity with embattled Iraqi democrats, but also reason to redouble our exertions to their cause. If we refuse to abort this mission, American security might -- just might -- hold up. But standing with Iraqis will secure one additional benefit, infinitely more precious than security: honor. Is it really a coincidence that this appeal garners so little endorsement among those who have opposed the mission to liberate Iraq from the start?