Besides Judeofascist Dodgers, who really wants another war against Iraq?
War talk reveals U.S. hawks as policy amateurs
William Pfaff International Herald Tribune/Los Angeles Times Syndicate International
Monday, August 12, 2002
Threatening Saddam
PARIS George W. Bush is talking himself into a position where he will have to go to war, even though there is no convincing argument that war would be good for the United States, or even good for Bush.
The military are certainly not convinced that war is a good idea. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff have made that clear through a series of leaks to the press. They are wary of a war whose objectives - beyond Saddam Hussein's overthrow - remain murky, and for whose aftermath no serious policy exists.
Generals are against war, but amateurs are for it. Who among the neo-conservative polemicists and op-ed writers baying for war against Saddam has personally spilled blood, or seen it spilled, or even heard shots fired in anger?
The president himself, thanks to his father's friends, was flying a National Guard fighter to defend the State of Texas against the Viet Cong.
The leading hawks in the administration made their records as Defense Department bureaucrats. Donald Rumsfeld was a peacetime naval flyer, but the only administration heavyweight who has actually fought in a war is Colin Powell, and he is the Bush administration's leading dove.
[...]
iht.com |
