Going to war and doing nothing is a false dichotomy if there ever was one. I wasn't much impressed by the "rebuttal" to containment, but I've been in enough flame wars that I am relatively cautious about getting into a respond to every post mode.
The local "war now" faction is not exactly a model of consistency. The incessant propaganda campaign since 9/11 to tie Bin Laden to every Middle East country the neocons want to remake in our image is , well, dishonest. For one small thing among many, Bin Laden is much more of a threat to the Saudi regime than an ally. And as near as I can tell, the CIA operation in Afghanistan is much more closely tied to the genesis of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than Saddam Hussein and Iraq is. "The moral equivalent of the founding fathers", that's what the original Jihad in Afghanistan was, according to the presidential propaganda of that day. So with all the abundance of "moral clarity" among the neocons, leading to never ending broad brush condemnation of the Arab world, sufficiently severe to require war and occupation of undetermined breadth and duration, why aren't they advocating us going to war against the CIA?
The current mopping up operation in Afghanistan, with the continual stream of blown up wedding parties and elder caravans is bad enough. Offhand, I'd say the most likely place for a fundamentalist takeover now is Pakistan. You think a war against Iraq is going to help there? You think a war on Iraq, regardless of whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, is going to serve some larger purpose, and is worth the risk, well, that's fine. You want to engage in some James Watt-like division, where there's Real Americans who want War Now! versus Chamberlainesque appeasers, well, you're going to take some flack. |
