That's a long article, yes. Much too much for one response.
Let me ask YOU a question: When Clinton put US troops into the Balkans, did you oppose it? If not, why not? You may argue that the UN sanctioned that. BUT the US was the driving force being that sanction. Clinton wanted it and got it. Just like Bush is pushing to get UN sanction for an attack on Iraq.
And the Balkans have long been the definition of a rat's hole and a headache. So, if it was OK for the US to intervene in the Balkans, with all the problems they can cause, why not the ME?
These are some of the points in there I have a problem with:
But it is much harder to focus down to the scale of caves, forests and villages where the rules of guerilla warfare control. That, plus the constant ambiguity of doing battle in a place where most people are not the enemy, is the core problem in Afghanistan.
Uh, I would think Afghanistan would be cited as showing the US military CAN fight in such places. The Taliban no longer rules there.
The Gulf War
was said to be a slam-dunk, and battlefield casualties numbered less than 800, but in a Veterans
Administration report of May 2002 Gulf War casualties were reported to include 8306 veterans dead and
159,705 veterans injured or ill. When personnel still on active duty are included, the VA indicated in the
May 2002 report that a total of 262,586 individuals are "disabled veterans" due to duty in the Gulf and that
10,617 veterans have died of combat related injuries or illnesses since the initiation of the Gulf War. That
represents a casualty rate of more than 30% for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991.
Those numbers are absurd. Thirty percent casualties is a slaughter. The Gulf War was not a slaughter. Not for US troops, anyway. The books are being cooked here. This is hardly an art limited to corporations. Look at SS and the whole federal budget.
If the US uses depleted uranium shells as lavishly as it did during the Gulf War, casualties from radiation alone will be numerous.
Yeah. Enemy casualties. Sorry, but those don't count once you're at war.
He makes a good point about legitimizing the use of force to prevent another country from presenting a threat. That can be stretched to cover any thing.
The use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" is intended to spread the alarm and fear attached to nukes to chemical and biological weapons. A good artillery barrage can kill more than a chemical attack. Biological has more potential, but still in general is not as deadly as nukes.
And there is no proof that Saddam has nukes.
Even if he does, he needs delivery systems. He has nothing that can reach the US or most of Europe. He could still use a leaky freighter to destroy a US city. But he's best make sure he doesn't get caught. We can reach him in minutes from here.
The Administration has also charged that Iraq is connected to al Qaeda. As far as I know, they have never proven that charge.
I'd prefer that the US not attack Iraq without more proof of nukes or support of al Qaeda. And if that is satisfied, my 2nd preference would be met: more international backing. |
