Senator Kerry calls this a "tragic milestone," and the most catastrophic of the administration's mistakes made so far. Regardless of his mistakenly voting for the war at the time, he's right. For him to turn against the Iraq war is a flip-flop I would be happy with. Hopefully he has an exit strategy, even though he's not telling us about it at the moment.
This is why Bush must be defeated in November. I realize the economy is an important issue, but compared to 1000++ dead soldiers? Come on. Not to mention 7,000++ wounded, and the 11,000++ estimated by the Iraq Body Count. This is a slam dunk, as George Tenet would say.
Prediction: if Bush is [re]elected, the U.S. will engage in pre-emptive war against Iran and/or North Korea. Is that really what we want?
Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?
Go to factcheck.org regularly to keep track of what you can believe about what the candidates say - which isn't much at all. But at least it tells you what their plans actually are.
Comments
Having completed Woodward's "Plan of Attack" recently. It gave me a better "big picture" of how the US got from point A to point B. The concept of whether or not the US should be in Iraq is not as clear as a man stumping for his next job would prefer the US the believe.
How about some comparitive numbers to what occured to the Iraqi people during the big S's reign as dictator.
North Korea; the biggest hurdle there is one of the US's strongest allies in South Korea and it's largest trading partner the Chinese. There is also the Russian factor when dealing with the North. While labeled as part of the "axis of evil", unlikely given the politics surrounding this situation
Iran; with it's current political moves over the last 12 months, the country has begun what many insiders perceive is a genuine turn around. Though skeptisism remains, there are more international, and more public, eyes involved in this one than in previous years. Many are taking the "wait and see" and "show us" principles with Iran but are hoefull of the potential. The US is taking a more passenger seat approach to this one while, currently, letting the UN take the driver's seat.
Of course I lament the continued march of war across the world. I take heart in the idea that, as globalization progresses and the world becomes more interconnected and interdependent, the number and intensity of wars diminishes. But, I believe it is not the responsibility of a nation to go to war except when the country has been attacked. I agree that military strikes and special forces are justified in the case of clear threats to a nation's security. Afghanistan met this criterion; Iraq does not.
I do _not_ agree with the idea that the U.S. (or any other power) should go to war for humanitarian reasons. Situations like Somalia (and now, Sudan) are a slippery slope, usually civil wars that result in huge carnage and suffering. When we practice interventionism, we endanger ourselves and foster animosity towards ourselves in the world. We could choose to engage in UN missions, but it should not be at our leading.
I have not read Woodward's "Plan Of Attack," so I'll have to defer judgement of the facts. I agree that the concept is not clear - but I argue that is a reason not to go to war! Regardless of his political motives, Kerry seems generally hesitant to go to war, but Bush does not share this hesitancy. I agree with Kerry in this respect. I'm afraid he will still get us into humanitarian wars, though. If he does I'll write against that as much as I write against Bush.
I'm sure the amount of suffering and death was worse under Hussein than it has been since. It doesn't matter - we can only take responsibility for what we have done, not what others have done. We're not the world's policeman.
If another pre-emptive strike is unlikely, given the current deployment of the US military, what is the point of having a pre-emptive doctrine? To me, this means the Bush doctrine is a dead letter. If it is, I'm glad - but it only shows how foolhardy the whole doctrine was in the first place.
The fact that going to war might upset some of our allies has not proven to be a significant factor in this administration's decision-making process. If we're not going to war with Iran/North Korea, "axis of evil" was mere saber-rattling. Was there a diplomatic/strategic benefit in using this phrase? It seems foolish in hindsight.
If, as you suggest, Iran turns around, it would be a welcome development. But I still think the evidence of that turnaround may be less convincing than whatever evidence the intelligence community may provide of their intent/accomplishments in developing WMD. If their having WMD means they are a threat, and they have it, how does the administration avoid its own logic and not attack them? They don't seem to be inclined to let the UN take the driver's seat in any of these situations. Or they do, and then take over as soon as they sense they should.