Rule #1.. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
Do you really think we knew what we were going to do once Germany and Japan were defeated?? That wasn't decided until Yalta in February, 1945, 3 months before V-E day, and 6 months before V-J day...
Much too different circumstances. Required different calculations at the outset. The WWII calculations were, rightfully, all defensive; no necessary justification for the war had to do with these kinds of outcomes. I would suspect there was talk about making the world safe for democracy, particularly since the memories of WWI were still around. But those statements weren't central ones.
In this case, one of the central justifications for a "regime change" in Iraq is a better government, a better society. Thus, if that fails to come about, it's possible things could be worse.
(2) attacking another country without provocation or serious multilateral agreement--the UN--is devastating foreign policy;
We've been attacked John, or have you forgotten??..
Depends on what you have in mind. If you are referring to 9-11, even the CIA has given up on making a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq for that one. So, best evidence at the moment, in that case, we were not attacked by Iraq. If, however, you meant the continuing shooting over the no fly zones, certainly. But those have been going on since the end of the Gulf War. They are hardly justifications now.
We know that Saddam Hussein is involved in funding terrorist networks... That's provocation enough, even without their disobeying the cease-fire agreements from their invasion of Kuwait and continuous attempts to shoot at US aircraft.
Care to offer evidence that he is funding global terrorist networks that have attacked the US mainland? That would not be either Hamas or Hizbollah.
(3)the neocons who now run the defense establishment have war as a kind of blood lust right now, just to be blunt;
What about FDR after Pearl Harbor??
You apparently genuinely believe today is like Pearl Harbor. My best to you.
And it's not an Islamist society that stands to replace Saddam. In fact, he's destroyed much of that sort of infrastructure for fear that Saudi Arabia was subverting his authority.
Read Phebe Marr's testimony before the Senate Committee. She basically, my view, says the most likely outcome is some form or other of utter chaos. We genuinely have no idea what follows. But it's not at all unlikely that what follows will be worse than Saddam, if great care is not taken. The Shiites are the strongest group in the southern part of Iraq. They would certainly be a player. There are others, not including the Kurds, who Marr thinks prefer the present situation since it has permitted them to carve out a slight bit of autonomy. |
