Washington ? It is time to review the logic of those people warning against an effort to bring about a regime change in Iraq.

First is the warning that an attack against Iraq might cause Saddam Hussein to use chemical and biological weapons or even nuclear weapons, though current intelligence reports indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. The problem with this reasoning is that it actually justifies the opposite course. Saddam has chemical and biological weapons and he has used them in the past. He will use them in the future. So, saying we should leave him alone out of fear of retaliation is akin to the same thing British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said about Adolph Hitler in 1938 and 1939: Appeasement is not a rationale for peace.

Next is the argument which is a corollary to the first argument that Saddam has not yet been able to build nuclear weapons. Therefore, the argument goes, we should negotiate with him in an effort to dissuade him from turning Iraq into a nuclear power. But when was the last time the free world was able to successfully negotiate with him? He agreed to allow U.N. inspectors in to check if he was producing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. As we know, he thwarted those efforts and the inspectors left.

The fact is that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea anywhere and a worse idea for a nation controlled by a megalomaniac. The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked between responsible leaders and nations. Even Soviet dictators understood the concept during the Cold War. That was why they backed off during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The person who did not back off then was Cuba’s dictator, Fidel Castro.

Documents released from the old Soviet archives show that Castro was urging his Soviet allies to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States from Cuba. He seemed not to understand or care what the U.S. retaliatory strike would do or that international nuclear war would ensue. And Castro is viewed as benevolent when compared to Saddam Hussein.

We cannot negotiate with Saddam, and we cannot allow him to build nuclear weapons. Period. We cannot stop him through talk or economic sanctions. He can only be stopped by removal from office.

Finally, there is the argument that an attack against Saddam would inflame other Arab nations and make our war on terrorism all the more difficult. This is appeasement by another name: surrogate appeasement. Saudi Arabia was invaded by Iraq in 1990, and the Saudis and Syrians joined us in ousting Saddam’s forces from Kuwait in 1991. Why now do they view Saddam as less of a threat? The difference is that this President Bush, unlike his father, is demanding a regime change in Iraq, and he means to change it with a democracy. We have written that the Saudi and Syrian authoritarian regimes fear democracy more than they fear Saddam.

Why would we credit their fear of democracy and alter a critically necessary course of action as a result? The fact is that they ought to fear democracy. It is contagious. The fact is that the introduction of democracy into a Middle Eastern Arab nation is an act that could finally bring peace to the region. It is a goal secondary only to the goal of eliminating Saddam’s chemical, biological and nuclear threats.

Prediction: The United States will oust Saddam with or without help. There is no choice.