It is war we are talking about here.
Yes. The discussion of war advocates around here tends to be quite bloodless, but that's not likely what the operation itself will be. I imagine it will be relatively bloodless for the US, as most recent operations have been. Not likely for the other side, and quite a lot, if not most. of the blood will be shed by people who either had little personal choice in the matter (conscripts and civilians). And by all indications, hardly any of the blood will be shed by anybody who had the slightest bit to do with 9/11, or anybody who has any probability of participating in future terror attacks either.
That's one reason to oppose the war. Then, there's the what happens afterward question. There's been continual handwaving about "democracy in Iraq", it's good to see occasional discussion about the difficulties that some realize are likely to occur in reality. The inner circle obviously sees the upcoming Iraqi occupation as an opportunity, not a problem. Launching pad for the next war and all that. Given history, that seems to be an overly sanguine view. If Perle and friends really see Iraq as the first step in a wider operation, involving (most likely) decades of occupation, there and elsewhere, they ought to say so. And start talking cost/benefit on a realistic level.
Instead, we get Perle preaching how the newly reelected Chancellor of Germany ought to resign, 'cause he won't get with the program. "Democracy", indeed. |
