Found this on a blog thread. About sums up the rational fairly well.
http://www.joeuser.com/Articles/Whyistheblogspherepromili.html
Why is the blogsphere pro military action?
Brad Wardell ( 10/06/02)
A friend of mine asked me today why are so many of the blogs are “pro-war” with regard to Iraq?
I think it has to do with the fact that blogs, unlike the general media, are much more interactive. If we put out a faulty argument, we’re going to get called on it.
So far, none of the anti-war people have put together a compelling argument for not acting with military force. For most people who have put a lot of thought into this subject it boils down to this:
Which costs more? Using military force to make a regime change in Iraq or doing nothing (or relying on inspections)?
The anti-war crowd has put together lots of “questions” and “concerns” and questions about the concerns and concerns over questions about what could conceivably go wrong if the United States and friends invade Iraq. For the sake of argument, I think many who advocate military action concede that military action, as an option, stinks. It’s just that we think the long term results of doing nothing will stink more.
The anti-war crowd is like the man trapped in a burning building. Standing near the edge of a window he sees a net being placed below him to jump into. He ponders all the things that might go wrong if he tries to jump into the net. Maybe he’ll miss. Maybe the net will break. Maybe he’ll get hurt anyway. Does that mean he shouldn’t still jump? Without considering the results of not jumping (such as being horribly burned to death), it’s a meaningless argument.
So any credible argument that is meant to persuade anyone to be against military action needs to put forth the argument that doing nothing will very likely cost less than military action. And so far no one in the blogsphere has put forth such an argument. In fact, I haven’t even read a single argument that attempts to argue that the cost of inaction is less than the cost of action.
And so the result is that the blogsphere is almost completely in favor of military action. If you don’t like that, then you need to come up with an argument that includes calculating in the cost of inaction.
update: One reader asks "What about the option between military action versus coerced inspections/disarmament?" This assumes 1) That inspections will somehow go differently than before, 2) The cease-fire terms required disarmament and he violated them, so we're going to go through the same show again? 3) How long are "inspections" going to last? 3 years? 5 years? Indefinitely? I don't see how indefinitely is going to be an option and what would be the costs of indefinite inspections? What about the costs of inspections for 3 years (which seems to me to just delay the inevitable).
I've written a follow-up that addresses the pro-inspection argument:
FOLLOWUP:
Inspections equal Inaction
Brad Wardell ( 10/06/02)
Several readers have emailed me asserting that if we can get inspectors back into Iraq and force disarmament then we can avoid a costly war, save lives, and accomplish the same goals. I don't see it that way. In my view, the original inspections had two goals:
1) To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction
2) To demonstrate whether Saddam could be trusted to comply with his agreements.
Both goals had to be accomplished to make any future relationship with Saddam's Iraq possible. History has shown that the original inspections accomplished neither goal and in fact has shown that Iraq will not act in good faith.
So what's really the point in getting inspectors in? How long are they going to stay in there? Indefinitely? That's the only way I can see them being effective. Having to play cat and mouse with Saddam and Junior over the next several decades is going to be costly. And I haven't seen any real
analysis looking at the likely costs of this.
What you say? If he messes up then we go in with force later on? Well heck, he was violating terms of the gulf war cease fire while US troops were still in his territory. The will of the "international community" and that of the United States is variable depending on who is in charge.
So let's look at this hypothetical:
Saddam lets inspectors back in with truly "unfettered access". Over the next 2 years they find no weapons of mass destruction (i.e. Saddam has destroyed them or hidden them beyond being found).
What then? The pressure to remove sanctions will only grow. So then let's say in 2004 the left's dreams come true and we get a President Bonior or something. At that point, Iraq sans sanctions is able to put its weapons programs into high gear and starts to gradually increase the pressure on theweapons inspectors, obstructing them at greater rates while bemoaning to the UN that "the inspections have been going on for long enough, it's time to move on.." President Bonior says "We must take Saddam at face value" and the inspections end. Just after Bonior wins his second term, Iraq announces it has several nuclear weapons and begins bullying OPEC, winning concessions from his neighbors and potentially supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. And that's a rosy scenario.
So in my mind, all inspections do is delay the problem. Saddam has already demonstrates he can't be trusted. I don't want to gamble with something this important. Taking Iraq might cost us thousands of troops and require occupation while a new liberal democratic government is nurtured. But the benefits of this far outweigh, in my mind, the cost of inaction. And I suspect that like the first gulf war, that the likely costs of military action will be much less than the doom and gloom that we're being fed.
In my view, inspections are the same as inaction since they lead to the same results.