To Attack or Not to Attack?

Feeling hawkish or dovish today?

The question is all about Iraq, of course, and whether to attack or not. A big factor in how you answer this question has to do with how much guilt you would feel if your hawkishness resulted in the deaths of young Americans.

Many of us are feeling less hawkish than we were a few months ago, when the dovish voices were quieter. Now that the "no war" noises are louder, it's got more people thinking.

If the no war option would work, as it has with other potentially hostile nuclear powers, I would say no war too. But show me the evidence that non-violent, coercive or purely persuasive measures work with Saddam Hussein. There just isn't any.

Next, tell me you would feel safe knowing that Saddam had a nuclear weapon. Tell me you think he wouldn't try to smuggle it into the U.S., to either set it off in Times Square, or use to blackmail our government into doing something he wants... like dumping Israel.

All those years, we thought we had Saddam in a box. We were quite comfortable with the "no war" option. There didn't appear to be any need.

Sept. 11 changed that, because we now know that these people hate us and are willing to strike out at us in a big way.

We've ended the Taliban and Al Qaeda threat, mostly. But we cannot say the threat from Saddam is over — not as long as there is a chance he could acquire a nuke.

If he gets one, he'll use it... and he'll use it on us.

That's My Word.

What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at myword@foxnews.com. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.

• Looking for some previous My Word columns? Click here!