In the 19th century, Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz wrote: “No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war."
Some time later, 21st century American president George W. Bush, referring to the march to war in Iraq, said, "My conversations with the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] was how can we do this peacefully?"
Do what peacefully?
If weapons of mass destruction were the real reason for invading Iraq, why didn't we leave when we found out there weren’t any there?
Did we really invade because of suspected al Qaeda connections? Al Qaeda didn't have a presence in Iraq until we invaded the country. Did we start a war to give ourselves an excuse to fight it?
If the real goal in Iraq was regime change, did Bush and Blair honestly believe they could do that peacefully?
Facing pressure from congress, President Bush is about to launch a campaign to ease America's concerns about the conduct and progress of the war in Iraq, but doesn’t plan to offer any policy changes.
Is that because:
a) there's no real policy to change?
Or
b) because the real policy was one that couldn't possibly have been achieved peacefully, so the Bush team figures it's best if he just doesn't talk about it?
Before you decide on an answer: if you haven't done so yet please, please, please read the 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Clinton calling for "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" through military action. Make sure to take a good look at who signed it. Then pass the link along to your friends.
--
Good grief! Some right wing wonk on MSNBC just denied the administration ever tried to tie Saddam Hussein to 9-11.
We live in Rovewellian times.
I'm going to try and get my mind off this over the weekend. Maybe I'll catch up on the latest news about Tom Cruise and Katie.
I'll leave you with a couple more logic puzzlers.
--How many more have to die in this war to prevent others from having died in vain?
--How long do you keep making a mistake to justify having made it in the first place?
Peace,
Jeff
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI think we agree down the line on this one. WMD was never the real reason.
I've come around to the opinion that coming up with a timetable is the best thing we can do. This argument that "they'll just wait for us to leave before they attack again" is bunk. If it were true, it would be the best possible outcome. If we say we're leaving in a year, and the insurgents lie low, that gives us a year to train up Iraqi forces in a secure environment.
Darn sight better strategy than the one we have now.
Jeff
I didn't know that Navy Commanders could be such tinfoil hat wearing moonbats. Rovewellian times? Get a grip, sir.
ReplyDeleteFroggy
"Tinfoil hat wearing moonbats?" Who'd you learn all those big words from, Froggy: Rush or Ann? ;-)
ReplyDeleteJ
Hard to say. Froggy might have gotten "tinfoil hat wearing moonbat" from Aristophanes or or Shakespeare. Except, no, they didn't have tinfoil in Aristophanes' or Shakespeare's days, did they?
ReplyDeleteIf I have a troll, does that mean I've "arrived" in the blogosphere?
Jeff