Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (148485)	10/21/2004 1:47:54 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) of 281500

After 9/11, it is reasonable that Bush should consider taking Saddam out directly. Why? Where is the hard evidence needed to justify this? There hasn't been any. Everything in their (lack of) planning suggests total overconfidence in the military plan. Everything in their (lack of) planning for post invasion occupation suggests total ignorance of the ground game. Reading declassified memos from past administrations reminds me that frequently the simple answer is the right one. Therefore - The most apt comparison is that Bush was looking to pick a fight with the weakling in the neighborhood (Iraq). - The simple explanation for wanting to invade Iraq? "Because we could". In my opinion, Bush got it wrong, had no justification to use as a decent pretext, and I have serious doubts that any grander vision he may have had (or Wolfowitz et al) will turn out well.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next