Bill Whittle has written an excellent essay about why fewer will die, fewer will suffer if we take the necessary step of war with Iraq. Countless others have linked to it, but I'll join the chorus, and encourage you to read it too. It's long, but very good.

I also voice one note of dissent. He misses a crucial item: the tyrant-regimes in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have been fence-straddling between the violent radical Islamists and us. They help us, but as little as they can, for they fear the radical islamists as much as us. They must be shown that backing the radical Islamists is a losing proposition, that backing the West is the right move.

The people in the region must also be shown that the West is kind, that the way of freedom and demoracy is better. They can be shown this with a liberated Iraq--and with the fact that far fewer of them will die in the process than if we continue the inspections and sanctions travesties.

There is almost no way this can happen without taking out Saddam Hussein. This monster must be brought down, for the sake of the people of Iraq and the rest of the middle east as much as ourselves.

They say that Bush will probably speak very little about the war tonight. But if so, he had better speak soon after. Lives are at stake, and time is running out.

* Update * - Yesterday's OpinionJournal pretty much lays out the grim possibilities for death and destruction and domestic chaos if we make the cruel, selfish choice and refuse to finish business and liberate the people of Iraq. Bush will be gone of course (which some people would be glad to see), but I suspect that most of the rest would come to pass too. Except they're too optimistic about Musharaaf's future. (Thanks to Bill Quick for the link.)