Is it possible that the Russ Feingold and the anti-war left just don't know English? For a movement that draws heavily from college students and self-styled intellectuals, this is hardly surprising. They keep talking about a "unilateral attack." So far, we've got upwards of 20 countries on our side, many of which are ready to commit troops, airspace, and bases to the effort. We've got most of the Gulf states, we will have Turkey, and we have Jordan. We have 18 European countries who've just told France and Germany to remember where they came from, Australia has already shown up and New Zealand will. There is nothing "unilateral" about anything with that number of supporters, almost of whom come from the civilized world.

The word they're looking for is "pre-emptive." Iraq has not, as of yet, actually managed, by overt, acknowledged military action, managed to attack the soil of the United States. The Iraqi government's potempkin republican institutions, from "parliament" to "referendum," have not, as of yet, declared war on the United States. None of this means that they aren't collaborating with al Qaida, that they aren't planning such an attack, that they wouldn't use their chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to deter us from, say, protecting Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It just means they haven't done so yet.

The anti-war folks will argue that we need to absorb an actual attack before we can respond. Some of us would argue that we have no moral obligation to let our citizen be incinerated, their lungs burned out, or their children murdered, before we make sure that it won't happen.

When the actual attack comes, the pacifists will move the bar. For some of us, that's reason enough to act now.