There are reasons, and there are reasons. And some reasons are even reasonable.

Before I start, here's the article on Slate.

With the benefit of hindsight, do you still believe that the United States should have invaded Iraq in March 2003?

We call this an "invalid question". We may as well ask "If you knew everything, would you go back and change your mind?" We didn't know everything -- probably still don't, in fact -- therefore the question is useless and moot.

Now, I supported the war in Iraq, but what always baffled me is how many damned reasons people came up with to justify it. This article names a few -- moral, political, WMD, national security, etc. -- but to me there was only one good reason to go: our word.

In 1991, we told Iraq that we would stop shooting at them provided they did X, Y, and Z. In the following 12 years, Iraq did none of those, and our response was continually "Oh yeah? Well keep that up and we'll start shooting again!" For that matter, the UN said basically the same thing, only they phrased it as "Um... ok, that's cool. Just don't do it again, please." What does this accomplish? In the case of Iraq, exactly what was expected -- Saddam did whatever the hell he damn well felt like, feeling secure that we wouldn't do anything. And he was, of course, correct -- we did nothing, though we certainly became obsessed with the president's sex life. As a result, both sides effectively violated the cease-fire -- them by not doing what they were supposed to be doing, us by not shooting at them as a result.

Why does this justify our invasion? Simple -- if we can't show a tiny pissant like Iraq that we mean business, what's to stop everyone else from doing something bad, signing a cease-fire, and then violating it all willy-nilly* because they know we won't do something about it? When that happens, we'll be useless in foreign affairs -- HUGE MOUTHPIECE, tiny little will to back it up.

Personally, I don't buy most of the arguments in favor of war. I don't think Saddam was suicidal enough to use WMDs on us -- people who are suicidal don't build statues to themselves -- and a nation that won't fight back shouldn't expect others to fight for them (remember, we outnumber our leaders millions to one -- the real winner is the one with the bigger will to win. That's the only real way totalitarianism can take hold.). But I do think that the war was necessary, if for no other reason than to ensure that we are taken seriously.

After all, the UN also ignored 12 years of cease-fire, and bitched and complained about having to enforce it, ultimately doing nothing. Where's its credibility now?

* (I've always wanted to use the phrase "willy-nilly" somewhere.)