The United States has the right to defend its interests beyond its borders in the interest of national security, even if that means taking a unilateral stance on a war with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The concept of war with the nation of Iraq itself is complex; after all, the United States is not attacking a democratic country that has granted its leaders the rights to pursue weapons, starve the citizens and cause international turmoil. As such, the view that attacking Iraq would somehow create a major humanitarian crisis is misleading at best.

Saddam’s people are starving to death by the thousands every year, and it would be in the interest of humanitarians around the world to endorse a United States-led coalition to disarm and immobilize his authoritarian regime.

These same liberals defend civil rights in the United States for minorities and those still oppressed by our government every day.

To say that the left is elitist for only protecting those born in a wealthy country might be somewhat misleading, but the case still remains that even the poorest, gay, African American women in the worst ghettos anywhere in our country still have more rights and more reasons for hope than the average Iraqi citizen.

We should insist on a strong commitment from our government to effectively remove Saddam while minimizing all possible civilian casualties.

However, the price of some Iraqi lives in 2003 may mean saving ten or 100 times that amount in 2004 who would have otherwise perished under Saddam’s cruel regime.

In fact, 4,500 Iraqi children die every month because of malnutrition and inadequate health care, which Iraq blames on the U.S.-led oil sanctions. Even so, the Iraqi regime has refused to make concessions on basic international law violations which has led to this desperate situation, furthering the argument that the dictator must be removed from power.

If the United States had preemptively invaded Germany in the 1930s to keep Adolf Hitler from his notorious invasions and genocidal terror, millions of lives would have been saved.

Similarly, Saddam has murdered thousands of Kurds in his own country in the interest of protecting his iron grip on the Iraqi government. No scholar, military leader, politician, or humanitarian would have the audacity to even speak words against such an incursion into Germany in retrospect.

When we liberate Iraq and build a democratic government, harvest its resources for the good of its people, teach women to read, clothe Iraqi children and give the nation international credibility, no scholar, military leader, politician or humanitarian will be able to utter dissenting words fifty years from now either. This is the reality of the war with Iraq.

Whether or not Americans have a clear “smoking gun” to further internationally condemn and impeach Saddam’s credibility is irrelevant. The fact that his mere existence poses a threat to all Jews, all Americans and westerners, all who value human rights and all those that live within or adjacent to his borders overwhelmingly warrants military intervention.

When coalition troops moved into Afghanistan and liberated its people, citizens of every color, gender and religious background cheered, cried tears of joy and rejoiced.

As the lone superpower in the world, it is my conclusion that the United States has a commitment and obligation to those citizens most oppressed and defenseless to seek reform.

France, Germany, England, Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia and China cannot, even collaboratively, understand this responsibility.

We must exercise our right to act upon the intuition and leadership that has gotten us to this historical moment as the world leader in almost every positive way measurable.

If liberals truly want to protect lives of Iraqi citizens, they will realize that we must make a long-term investment in the future of the impoverished nation by removing the biggest threat to its security: Saddam Hussein.