Recent developments in this dangerous old world appear to vindicate those of us who belong to the guns not butter school of foreign policy. In his WaPo column this morning, Charles Krauthammer debunks Howard “Clueless” Dean’s smug claim that the Saddam’s capture hasn’t made Americans safer. “Saddam was one of [our enemies],” writes Krauthammer, “and he is gone. Libya was another, and it has it has just retired from the field, suing for peace and giving up weapons of mass destruction. (Gaddafi went so far as to go on television to urge Syria, Iran, and North Korea to do the same,” he writes. This has happened because of a show of American might, backed up, of course, with jaw-jaw. But it is the guns, not the buttery talk that has really made the difference of late. Yes, we are still loosing soldiers, but we are closer to victory. This “does not mean there is an immediate cessation, or even an immediate diminution of casualties (see: Battle of the Bulge).”

By the way, unlike Dr. Dean, I have no hesitation about pre-judging Saddam. I am adamantly opposed to putting him on trial. This is not the sort of thing the criminal justice system was designed to handle. The Other Charlotte and I intend to have a back-and-forth chat about what to do with Saddam. I am leaning towards shooting him or turning him loose in the public square in Iraq without bodyguards. What do you think? TOC and I would welcome letters offering ideas on this.