Krauthammer is a well-known hawk. However:
I think Iraq should be disarmed and would be OK with that if the US would disarm as well. The military solution in Bosnia and Serbia is a band aid on a large cultural sore and is by no means solved. It just isn't getting the press right now. Also, geopolitically, the Bosnia/Serbia issue and the Iraq situation is apples and oranges. What applies in one case doesn't always work in another. 22 Arab countries have met in Cairo to announce their solidarity to protect Iraq's borders. This didn't happen in Bosnia/Serbia. As I recall, that was a UN operation not a unilateral decision on Clinton's part. Besides, the inspections are working. If Saddam is cheating and hiding his weapons, it is now known world-wide. He is not Hitler, though. He's too cagey to attack without provocation because it's obviously not in his best interest to do so. Remember that with the rise of the Putsch and the Third Reich, Hitler was convinced that he could dominate the world. Saddam isn't interested in upsetting his dictatorial status-quo. But if the US attacks Iraq, it will give him the "moral" ammunition in the eyes of the Arab world to do damage. He is playing the Bush Administration for a fool by saying to his neighbors, look the US is just another imperial power who wants to boss you. You want that to happen to you? I think that the world would be surprised at his "allies". The way out of the quagmire is to let the UN inspectors do their necessary work and take time to get it right. Cowboy tactics will solve nothing but bringing American youth back in body bags and offering "freedom" to innocent Iraqi women and children by bombing them and calling it "collateral damage". Simplistic answers that the US should do what was applied in WWII make no sense.

Frank Hamilton