Scott, you found one who can write and construct an argument. It's refreshing to read an opposing view that isn't hysterical and hyperventilating. Good read, but I disagree on several counts.
First, Pakistan and N. Korea do not pose a bigger threat than Iraq. Klare should read the Pollack column Bill posted from the NYT. Pakistan is locked in a conflict with India that is more akin to the Cold War than anything. Both sides have nuclear weapons and have expressed a willingness to use them in their own defense - both sides, therefore, deterring the other from aggression. N. Korea holds WMDs because they are paranoid - misguided as it may be, it is still a defensive basis for holding them. They might sell them because they are desperate for cash and that's a problem, but it is not because N. Korea is a likely aggressor themselves. N. Korea can be dealt with diplomatically, though it's neighbors have at least as much at stake and need to be more involved and responsible.
Second, his conclusion about a defeat of Saddam only leading to more terrorism because we haven't settled the Israeli/Palestinian problem misses two key points. For one thing, while people reasonably disagree about the evidence of a direct Iraq-Al Queda link, only a liar or a fool would deny a link between Saddam and Palestinian terrorists. For another, the Iraq situation resolved, the US would be in a much better position to push both Israel and the Palestinians for a settlement both can live with.
Third, he doubts the motive of promoting democracy (for "several" reasons, then only gives one - maybe one and a half) on the grounds that the US has supported dictators in the past when it served our interest. No one denies that (except a different group of liars and fools than the one above, perhaps). But if anything, Bush's policy toward Iraq shows that he does not accept past policies and strategies as either effective or appropriate to the current situation, so these old strategies are not a logical basis for doubting the claimed basis for current strategy. Klare should read and objectively consider Bush's National Security Strategy.
Finally, he concludes that it must, then, be about oil. It's not, for the simple reason that we could easily assure the continued flow of oil, at least for the remaining six years of Bush's presidency, by appeasement, including lifting of sanctions. Risking war, or "wanting war" as his opponents accuse him, is the least likely means of assuring that oil keeps flowing smoothly and cheaply.
Regards,
Bob |
