While still ignoring the reprecussions of an invasion of Iraq, Josh Micah Marshall is at least addressing the arguments against invasion, and he makes a valid point about the problems entailed in continuing a sanctions and containment regime. What he continues to miss, however, are the very real international problems that such an invasion would cause. His analogy about "lancing a boil" is utterly inaccurate; it would be more like forcible cosmetic surgery.

Frankly, in my darker thoughts I'm starting to wonder if 9/11 has completely eradicated any concept of non-American national sovereignty from the minds of the citizens of the United States outside of the so-called "loony left". The litmus tests that I mentioned earlier really have less to do with being pro- or anti-American and a lot more to do with whether or not one believes the United States has the ability and the moral right to do whatever suits its interests, and whether it should or can compromise on any issue. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the war on terrorism, because the invasion of Iraq would have very little to do with that war and I know for sure that the ICC, Kyoto treaty, and the Farm bill have nothing to do with it. The debate now solely centers around whether something is in the United States' interests; any questioning of the primacy of those interests from any source is now dismissed as "anti-Americanism". Whether someone is actually American or not. I wonder whether this is a temporary reaction to the brutality of Al-Qaeda's attack, or a permanent change in American attitudes. I don't think I even want to know what it would mean if the latter were the case.