Tuesday, August 20, 2002

Here are the CATO INSTITUTE’S arguments against going to war in Iraq. I’m an extreme hawk when it comes to waging war in the Middle East, but the Cato Institute has made some plausible arguments—unlike the anti-war kooks at the New York Times or in academia.

Fear of acting because of the potential downside is bad government policy and a bad way to live one's life. Yes, it's possible the war doesn't go well. Yes, it's slightly possible the situation in the Middle East could get worse instead of better. But how much worse could the situation get? How much more of a downside could there really be?

The argument about “destabilizing” the Middle East is absurd. There will only be stability in the Middle East when all leaders are democratically elected, the rule of law exists, and private property is protected. Why would America, Europe, or the UN want to protect the status quo in the Middle East? I don’t understand the connection between nations whose leaders fund and train terrorists and a secure supply of energy. Certainly free people would be much more interested in selling us as much oil as we want—minus the terrorism part.