<the idea of a 'moral war' is an intellectual conceit>
I find your defense of the NeoCon position to be the most honest, and (my guess) the closest to reality. You strip away all the romantic nonsense, the SeeNoEvil mythology, that surrounds and cloaks the NeoCon agenda. You aren't fooled by your own side's propaganda.
<The goals are:
- secure the supply of oil from the middle east>
"Blood for oil", just like the antiwar protestor's signs say.
<- cut off a source of funding and weapons to our enemies>
I'll make a prediction: Regime Change in Iraq increases the flow of funding and weapons to our enemies. What's going to happen here, is exactly what happens after we spray defoliant on a marijuana field in Mexico. The demand for the drug is unchanged, so the growers just move over to the adjacent field, or adjacent province, or adjacent country. The supply that is produced and brought to market, is controlled wholly by the market demand. And every picture of dead Iraqi women and children increases the demand for terrorism against the U.S.
<- provide enough military and economic threat to have leverage in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria>
I'll make another prediction: we lose leverage in those countries, as a result of conquering Iraq. They respond to our threats, our unlimited ambitions, by adopting a siege mentality, and arming themselves with every weapon they can get. Whatever modest anti-terrorism help we got from those nations, after 9/11, goes away. The more we threaten, the more anti-american they become, in word and deed.
If, a year from now, we have established something that looks approximately like a democracy in Iraq, and gotten the other nations in the region to quit supporting terrorism, and the "road map" for Israili/Arab peace is on track, then I will end up sounding like you.
On the other hand, if my predictions happen, then you are going to be sounding like me, because you'll realize the NeoCon methods are achieving the exact opposite of what was promised.
Deal? |
