EDITORIAL
Is removal of Saddam a moral imperative?

In its eagerness to justify a "regime change" in Baghdad, the Bush administration is attempting to shift the debate from a rational discussion of the questions it hasn't yet answered to an emotional appeal.

Washington now asserts a "moral case" for removing Saddam Hussein that appears to make questions about the cost and justification irrelevant.

"This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said last week in a British Broadcasting Corp. interview.

"We certainly do not have the luxury," she added, "of doing nothing."

Thus the administration is reframing the discussion, having failed to make a convincing case against the alternatives to war, including a resumption of U.N. inspections to ensure that Iraq doesn't acquire weapons of mass destruction, and establishing deterrents to make sure that it dare not use them. It also seems to be avoiding comparison of cost, both in terms of blood and treasure, to benefit.

That is not to say the administration doesn't have a case, only that we haven't seen it.

The administration originally sought to make an attack on Saddam part of the war on terrorism, but it failed to link Baghdad with the events of Sept. 11. Now it claims to know what he'd do with weapons of mass destruction, assuming he doesn't already have them.

He has used poison gas before, essentially a World War I technology, brutally and inexcusably. But he used it to stay in power, both to quell a Kurdish uprising and to prevent defeat by Iran. That suggests he might use it again to defend against an American invasion. He also has Scud missiles and launched 37 of them against Israel in the 1991 Gulf War.

But what really worries the administration, as it should, is acquisition by Saddam of a deliverable nuclear threat. Unfortunately, however, Saddam is hardly the only "evil man" attempting to go nuclear. Think North Korea, Iran or even, in the not-so-distant past, China. We've found that learning to live with these countries, while unpleasant at times, is preferable to making war on them.

To suggest that failure to take out Saddam would amount to appeasement on the level of Munich is a gut-level appeal against which those who voice legitimate doubts have no argument. Yet troubling questions about a war on Iraq remain. It would divert us from the ongoing war on terrorism. The Pentagon continues to balk at the prospect. And world governments are almost unanimous in opposing it.

History, after all, shows many more instances where moderation and accommodation prevented disastrous wars than instances where appeasement led to them. Iraq might prove to be one of the exceptions. If so, Bush owes it to the world and the nation to make a convincing case for it before he proceeds.