Dan Minette wrote:
It's strategic, but what is the motivation for the strategy? If it's _really_ WOMD and they think that Hussain constitutes a dire threat to our nation then they are remiss in not pushing for a political solution a year ago. Putting it off to use it to their advantage in an election _is_ despicable in this case because they've put us at risk for that much longer.I'm in the middle on this, so I'll ask questions on both sides. My read is that two things are clear:1) There has been a strong push to go after Iraq in the Administration for over a year. It just isn't politics, there is a camp within the Administration that really believes it. The primary push for going to war with Iraq is not political, it strategic.
Playing on peoples worst fears for political reasons _is_ despicable. That's one of the reasons we consider terrorism so heinous. And I reiterate; if there is a real danger to this country from that quarter we should have been pushing for a solution long ago. Sliding the vote back may have cost many lives in another terrorist attack if there _is_ a real danger.2) The vote coming in October is not a coincidence. Given the fact that the Administration wants to do well in the November election, and given the fact that it wants a big vote for action in Iraq, the timing for both is perfect. The Democrats were in fine shape to set up for the fall election in mid-summer. The news cycle was on energy company fiascos, and Bush was getting close to being tied in. Now, the fact that Bush's company played some games with hiding the true balance sheet of the company to push stock prices up, (like but not as severe as Enron) is lost in the noise. So, my conclusion is that the push is real and heartfelt as Bush's understanding of what best to the for the US. The timing is political. Indeed, I have quotes via Yahoo that show that the Republican consultants state that they will do what they will to keep Iraq front burner in the news till mid-November. I don't fault the Republicans for this, though. Going to war for politics is despicable. Timing the votes so its win-win for the Republican party and the vote on the war is not. If you are going to do it anyway, sliding the vote forward or back a couple of months does not change how many people will die in the war.
Yes. Saber rattling in order to bring about the desired effect. It worked to help end the cold war (star wars and all) and it very well could work here. But here's what I don't like about this particular Bushcapade. We're making enemies. Not in the middle east. They all hate us already. But everywhere else in the world. After 911 we had the good will of almost the entire world, and they all pledged to help us fight terrorism. Last year we could have asked the world to help us insure that Iraq should not be allowed to build WOMD. Asked them to be a part of the team in the war on terrorism, and if force became necessary, so be it. As a part of the team whose other options had run out, it's doubtful we would have faced much resistance. What did we do instead? We waited to use Iraq as a political foil, and when the time came the Bush administration went into their lone cowboy act. I guess it's not surprising for an administration that seems to think that diplomacy is some kind of lunch meat.Since I'm responding to Doug, I will ask the question I ask those who are against action in Iraq. If not action, then what? IIRC, the "peace" faction were pointing out how bad and worthless the sanctions were about 18 months ago. Before 9-11, it looked as though the UN was about to remove them. IMHO, the sanctions slowed down but didn't stop the remilitarization of Iraq. Without them, Iraq would have about $50 billion/year income to play around with from oil (if my back of the envelope is correct). With half of that going to the military, a bit conservative, that's still a lot of money. Especially, since military pay will not consume much of the cash. You know the French and Chinese will find ways to sell Iraq arms for the right price. So, is the answer that the suffering due to the sanctions remaining in place is better than the cost of war, and that the sanctions do work after all? Inspections have been suggested, but it is apparent to me that Iraq allows just enough inspections to stop an invasion. You might argue that what is best is a full inspection due to the only other option being an invasion. But, the counter to that is that, for this to happen, Bush is doing the exact right thing. He _has_ to be the bad cop, for the UN to be the good cop.
So we make enemies. And what's going to come of that? More terrorism and a good deal less sympathy from the rest of the world, that's my guess. Ye shall reap what ye sow and we're sowing ill will all over the place. Not that we're wrong about Sadam, mind you, we're not. We're just going about the problem in entirely the wrong way.
So I ask myself, why? Why would we go about this in such a way that we piss just about everyone else off without giving diplomacy much more than lip service? Does anyone believe that the Security Council will ever give Bush what he is asking for at this point? It has been said that we could bribe Russia, but I think they must be holding out for more that we're willing to fork over. France, China, will they see our terms? Maybe eventually, but I've gotta think that Iraq will give enough ground so that they hold out for a long time. Maybe too long for Bush Corp. So we'll attack. We'll destroy their infrastructure so that the long suffering people of Iraq can suffer a bit longer. But then we'll rebuild the place and everyone will live happily ever after. Except that where there was one rich Saudi that vowed that we would suffer after the Gulf war, maybe there will be two this time, maybe more. And where there was one nation that allowed terrorists to train in their midst, perhaps there will be several that turn a blind eye. And we'll react with more violence. And so on, and so on.
That's the scenario that scares me.
Doug
I think its, like, some kind of Bologna....
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
