Funny, if the chattering classes are any indication, both left and right seem to believe the Iraq invasion is coming, without much fuss about it. I think the general feeling is that we should have finished the job the first time. Have you seen anything that says different?
Well, Nadine, I don't think the general US population is all that focused on Iraq as an issue of any sort. And, in that vacuum, should US policy makers start talking invasion, as Pollack does, I think Clinton's reading of US opinion is the more accurate. No body bags. I know everyone says 9-11 changed everything in this regard. I just don't think so. Had there been strong evidence of Iraqi involvement in it, then there is no question, there would have been as much enthusiasm as for the Afghan campaign.
I think it's easy to mistake the intense interest of policy makers and their camp followers (us) with ditto from the great heartland. I thought the Clinton impeachment period, in which there was such a divergence, maintained poll after poll, month after month, would make that point.
Do you see something different?
Thus, if you follow Pollack's logic to its end, I think you wind up unable to do anything.
Then Saddam Hussein will get nukes, & take over the region, or we will confront a nuclear exchange with him. I don't think our policymakers find these options acceptable.
Well, after typing that I thought back to Feurth's remarks in that debate with Perle and I think he's closer to the mark, at least in his observation that one cannot confront Iraq without very careful preparations. I assume that would have to involve preparing public opinion (and testing it). If it's not ready to go, it's genuine folly to do so. Seems to me Vietnam established that, among a great many other things.
John |
