If action has consequences, so does inaction. The Bush administration is receiving harsh criticism—some of it deserved—for its actions in Iraq. The sadistic abuse of the Iraqi prisoners cannot be justified. But the attacks on America’s policy in Iraq are short-sighted, because they fault the administration for undertaking costly actions when the costs of inaction would have been greater.

How many lives could have been saved if America and Britain had taken action to stop Hitler before he became so strong and then, in 1939, invaded Poland? That was a case when action could have averted an entire world war. More recently, in the mid 1990s, the inaction of the United States and the United Nations in Rwanda (see sidebar) resulted in the Hutu extermination of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. Once again, many global tears were shed after the fact for an event that could have been stopped at the very beginning.

In Iraq, consider this grim reality. If all the conditions specified by the critics of American policy could be met—if America had not invaded but rather waited—then Saddam Hussein would still be in power today. In short, the Iraqi people would still be at the mercy of this bloodthirsty tyrant, who during his 23 year reign murdered over 300,000 of his own people. Is this what the critics of America’s policy really want? Then they should call for Saddam to be returned to power! He’s around. No doubt he would be willing.

Perhaps inaction would have been too high a price to pay. But reasonable people may demand that action, however preferable, be justified for the costs that it imposes, both in terms of money and in terms of lives lost. To such people I offer the following twofold rationale for America’s invasion and occupation (there is no need to flinch from these terms) of Iraq.

First, the Bush administration acted because it recognized after September 11 that the greatest terrorist threat to America does not come from Al Qaeda. In reality, Al Qaeda is the second greatest terrorist threat faced by the United States. The reason is that a bunch of men flying planes into buildings can kill several hundred or a few thousand people, but they cannot kill a hundred thousand. Or five hundred thousand. Or a million.

The greatest threat facing America today comes from a nuclear-tipped terrorism, or a biologically-tipped terrorism, or chemical weapons used on a mass scale. As President Bush argued, the magnitude of destruction launched by weapons of mass destruction justifies a nation taking pre-emptive action against a perceived rogue state that is pursuing such weapons.

Last October the U.S. led Proliferation Security Initiative seized thousands of centrifuge parts on their way to Libya, convincing Gadhafi to give up his nuclear program. Then Pakistan’s former nuclear chief, AQ Khan admitted to selling nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea, uncovering a large nuclear black market. This past Sunday the New York Times reported evidence gathered by the U.N. atomic agency suggesting that North Korea provided Libya with 2 tons of uranium once thought to have come from Pakistan.

What we now know is that Gadhafi was continuing to buy nuclear-related equipment more than six months after Libya began talks with Britain and the U.S. about shutting down their weapons programs. Since then Libya has disclosed having stockpiles of 20 tons of deadly mustard gas and other chemical agents used in the manufacture of sarin and other toxins. Action put an end to Gadhafi’s nuclear ambitions.

So far we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and maybe there were none to be found. Maybe Bush and the U.S. Congress were misinformed. But even so, it is unfair and unreasonable to use the privilege of hindsight and criticize political leaders for failing to take into account information that is available to us now, but was not available to them then. Bush and the U.S. Congress were united in their decision to put an end to the emerging weapons threat developing in the middle east. They made the best decision under the circumstances, and this is the most that can be asked of our national leaders. Even today there is surprising consensus of opinion regarding Iraq within our national leadership. On Wednesday the New York Times reported that the Iraq policies of both Bush and Kerry share many similarities. They both support the June 30 transition to civilian power, an increase in U.S. troops if necessary, and no deadline for bringing our troops home. Both seek greater involvement of the international community.

There is also a second rationale for America’s Iraq policy that remains as valid today as it was on the day U.S. troops crossed the border into Iraq. America is attempting something quite unprecedented and marvelous. We are trying to see if the seed of democracy can be planted in a part of the world that has never really known it.

If it takes root, then Iraq can be a model for democracy in the Arab world. And if democracy spreads to countries like Iran and Egypt and Jordan and Syria, we could see an historical transformation no less spectacular than the transformation of the old Soviet Union. Would this kind of outcome not justify a considerable exertion of American will, and patience, and resources, and effort? Of course it would.

America’s attempt to bring democracy to Iraq is, of course, risky, and expensive, and dangerous, and faces resistance. It is, I admit, an experiment. It could fail. But I have much more admiration for those who are willing to try, than for those timid souls who would rather cut and run, strengthening the hand of America’s enemies and abandoning the Iraqi people to the rule of Islamic fanatics and former Saddam loyalists.

In Iraq and the Middle East, as in many other great challenges (remember World War II? Remember the cold war?) success for America will not come easily and once again it comes with a steep price tag. But what is the price of failure?