A war to be proud of

As I observed precision-guided bombs strike Baath party headquarters in downtown Baghdad on CNN International in the latter days of March, 2003, I felt a fierce ambition rise in my gut. It was to craft just one air-tight piece in defense of regime change that would run every year on March 19 -- my birthday, but more, the birth of a free Iraq. It seems appropriate -- three years later -- to initiate that process.\nIt doesn't require excessive talent to dispel the idea that the world would be a more just place if America hadn't removed Saddam Hussein (whose rule made Iraq into what has been most aptly described as a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath it). Nor does it take much ability to disprove the notion that somehow Iraq had ceased to pose a threat to U.S. security (which most sentient beings agree is often imperiled by psychopathic dictators who seek to amass weapons of mass destruction and have a long and distinguished record of collaborating with terrorists). \nThe most persistent point to be raised by detractors of the war has been about its duration. How long are we to be expected to fight, they ask. Permit me to reply. The American-led coalition can and should stay until Iraq is turned into a killing-field of jihadists and a training ground for a democratic army that will need to take a hand in other theaters where terrorists and tyrants threaten civil society. \nSkeptics will retort that Iraq was thus a ploy to bolster America's imperial position. I suppose in fairness I should concede this point. A free Iraq will represent an important step toward establishing an American war-fighting beachhead at the center of the Middle East. Implementing a plan so bold was never going to be easy. But what was the alternative? \nAnd what is the alternative to successfully executing it today? In many ways, that case argues itself -- nowhere more so than in Iraq, where a line of demarcation has been irrevocably drawn. On the one side, you have an unsilent majority of Iraqis who have invested themselves in a future of hope. On the other, you have the most savage Islamic terrorists, who would prefer that Iraq bleed to death than see its experiment at democratic federalism succeed. For whom is this insufficient cause to choose sides? \nAs I write, Iraq, loyally assisted by the United States, is besieged by forces of reaction intent on returning the freest Arab state to the dark ages. That is a fight Iraq cannot lose with continued American support. Which is why this moment seems to me a pivotal crossroads on the home front -- and yet virtually no one is paying it any attention.\nThe only question that remains unresolved is whether the United States -- after proving it has the guts -- has the grit to finish this noble and necessary job. Despite the heartbreak, the lesson to be taken from all of this is clear: After three stern years of conflict, Iraq must be measured as a war to be proud of. Advocates of liberation should say so. The war, and the debate hovering over it, will surely rage on. On both scores, as President Bush might say, bring it on.