A somewhat moving article, but the author relies entirely too much on empathy to make his point. Yes, I feel bad for the 9/11 victims, but that has nothing to do with Iraq! In fact, I'd argue that over half of his article is based on emotional pandering or half-truths. If you read down to the comments below the article, there's an excellent rebuttal.
A quote from the article says that_ "A small nuclear device can be fit into a suitcase. We need to face the stark, brutal fact that in a free society there is no defense against such a weapon. This war cannot be won, and our cities and people saved from nuclear annihilation, by playing defense."
And he's absolutely right - there's no defense against such a weapon. No technology, no weapon, and no military action will ever change that fact. So, why do we think that invading Iraq will somehow make us safer? First of all, it is the unanimous consensus of the world that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons capability. Secondly, couldn' t this attack just as easily come from Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt - all known to be hotbeds of terrorist support?
In the end, the only way to protect ourselves is to change attitudes. The Arab world doesn't hate us because we're rich, or hate us because we have nukes and they don't. They hate us because the arrogance and hypocrisy that we display in our foreign policies and actions is appaling. It's just idiotic to think that one military campaign will wipe out this kind of anti-american sentiment. In fact, I'd argue that it will make it worse.
Too tired to finish up this rebuttal properly, but I'll leave you with this thought_
Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter declare that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides that there has been a material breach of a resolution, and determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted.
This is clearly not the case in Iraq.