This is not the entry I wanted to write. Have ideas of so many unwritten entries from the past week or so, and they would be both safe and enjoyable to put up here. But Melissa asked, so I guess this needs to be said.

I support President Bush's policy on Iraq.

Those of you who know me, know how hard it is to write those words: "I support President Bush".

It's almost enough to make me gag. And it appears to be a little cowardly to wait until this time to finally step out and speak up. To be honest, I was intending to avoid this discussion all together. Particularly since I personally have so little at risk, whereas some of you are more directly involved.

Regardless of Bush's motivations (and I think Melissa did an excellent job of evaluating those), Iraq must be disarmed.

This has nothing to do with Al Qaida, and I consider it a bit of embarrassment that my government tried to make that link.

This has nothing to do with stealing Iraqi oil, as much as many would like to make it so.

This has nothing to do with a "pre-emptive strike," although much has been made of that rationalization. Iraq was unlikely to attack us. (And no, our precedent will not make it easier for other nations to follow suit, like China attacking Taiwan. China cares not a whit for international law, unless it serves their purpose and goals. The only thing preventing China from forcefully taking Taiwan is us. As in, U.S. of A. Modern nations tend to follow international law because it is in their best interest to do so, not because they are inclined to be ethical.)

This has nothing to do with Saddam attempting to murder members of the President's family, but that should certainly give us an idea of what type of person we are dealing with.

And finally, this has nothing to do with Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher, but I hope our involvement in Iraq will lead to answers on his fate.

This is unfinished business.

Many speaking against the coming war point to other nations that could pose potential threats to America, even nuclear threats, and rhetorically ask why we don't attack them as well.

Simple. They haven't invaded and conquered a neighbor. Iraq did.

This is not ancient history. The government (how about "regime" if you prefer the commonly used word) that conquered Kuwait is still there in Iraq. The same one that started the Gulf War.

And we are still fighting that war. This is not Gulf War II. It is the end of Gulf War I. We did not decide unilaterally to end our conflict in Iraq twelve years ago. Hostilities were ended with an armistice. To ensure that all that pain, death and damage wasn't for nothing, the allies insisted, and the Iraqi regime agreed, under threat of total annihilation, to disarm itself.

No different than the disarming of Japan after World War II. A logical step of de-fanging the serpent to prevent further attacks.

Except Iraq did not disarm.

They did not comply with the conditions laid upon them to halt the advance of allied troops in the Gulf War. They cheated, and they lied. They stood up and defied the agreement they had signed to save themselves.

So, here we are.

We can join the French, and pretend everything is going well, and hope that Iraq will behave itself even though it is ignoring the conditions of its surrender, even though it is developing new means of delivering its arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction". (Hey, here's an idea. Let's call a spade a spade. Bombs destroy, but mustard and nerve gas do not. They kill. So let's be honest, and call them his "weapons of mass killing", or "weapons of mass murder". That's what he made them for.)

Or, we can go back in, and complete the conditions of the Gulf War armistice by force.

Yes, it will lead to increased risk of terrorist attacks, and increased civilian support across the world for terrorist organizations. Why the heck do you think France is taking the side of ignoring Iraqi noncompliance? The French certainly know what the U.S. is going to do, have known for months. So if the serpent is going to be defanged anyway, why join in and have to bear the wrath of the serpent's friends? Easier to sit on the sidelines, enjoy the security bought at the cost of American, British, Australian and Iraqi lives, and then watch others have to deal with the terrorism backlash.

Maybe a smart strategy, but certainly not admirable.

But if you're going to base the decisions of our government, of our lives, upon the fact that we might piss someone off and suffer acts of terrorism, then you might as well start buying your chadors now. Because the terrorist groups we worry about are not just attacking our international behavior. They don't just hate the way our society conducts its international affairs.

They hate our society, period. Because we do not choose to live by their version of religious laws.

Their terrorism will not abate if we step back and leave Iraq alone. If anything, they will be emboldened, for to allow a country to ignore the conditions of settling a war can only be seen as an act of weakness, and a lack of will.

So, there you have it. I support this war. I am grateful for Colin Powell and his efforts to give peaceful solutions a chance, to give the rest of the world the opportunity to make Iraq comply with its obligations without armed conflict.

But it didn't work.

Time to settle this.