Car Stops and the War on Terror

I have listened to the left repeat the same old arguments against the War on Terror for too long now. The two that drive me the most crazy are: "There were no weapons of mass destruction, so we have no right to be there," and "Why are we in Iraq? What about Saudi Arabia? That's where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, why don't we bomb them?"

Instead of replying with the obvious answers, I want to try a new perspective, and explain why those arguments are irrelevant with an analogy....Car Stops.

Let's say that there are three cars that I want to stop because I think that there may be drugs in the car. Car 1, I actually saw the drugs as they went into the car. Car 2, I did not see the drugs go in, but I know that the registered owner has a suspended driver's license, and I have no reason to believe that the driver is not the registered owner. And Car 3 I just have a hunch about, but no reason to stop the vehicle yet.

Now, with Car 1, since I saw the drugs go in, I can stop it, get the drugs, arrest the driver, etc. With Car 3, I have to wait for an infraction before I can stop the car. Hopefully, after the stop I will have some reason to confirm my hunch about the drugs, and proceed that way. It is harder to do, and takes more police work, but it can be done, and is done quite a bit.

Now let's consider Car 2. Since I know the registered owner has a suspended license, and since ther is no reason for me to believe that the registered owner is not the driver, (for example, the driver is male and the owner is female) I can stop the car to check to see who is driving. Going further, let's say that the driver is not the owner, and has a valid license, but during the course of the stop I form the opinion that the driver is drunk. Let's go one step further and say that, since my original hunch was about drugs in the vehicle, I am able to obtain a legal consent search from the driver, but I find no drugs. None of this invalidates the original reason for stopping the car, and the driver will still be arrested for Driving While Intoxicated.

Let's tie the analogy to the War on Terror. Afganistan is Car 1. Everyone agrees that we were most justified in going to Afganistan after 9/11, since the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is Car 3. We may have our own beliefs based on hunches about the Saudi government and their support for terror organizations, but we still cannot justify taking action.

Iraq is Car 2. For the sake of this argument, I will concede that there are no WMD's. ( I happen to believe that there were, and that they were sent somewhere else just prior to the invasion.) I will also concede that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. (Again, there are links, but I am not making that argument.) We were still justified in going in because of the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. Saddam Hussain was not abiding by that agreement. We were very justified in going in. Even though what we found after invading was different from what we expected, we still have every right to be there. The original justification for the invasion was not made invalid.