Best Argument for Iraq
As usual, Joshua Micah Marshall, from a July 22 post has managed to give a balanced anaylsis of our Iraq situation. While he has been a vocal critic of the government's reasoning and behavior, he give the neo-cons in the kitchen cabinet credit for pursuing the war in Iraq for positive ideological reasons.
That is, instead of claiming that we're in Iraq so that the Bushies could win 2002 & 2004 (which is so obvious that it's not even considered a problem - just being a politician means that you will start foreign entanglements to be re-elected; it's so much part and parcel of politics that it carries no more shame than being a politician itself) he brings some nuance.
Here's Marshall's analysis of the war reasoning:
"But over time after 9/11 one overriding theory of the war did take shape: it was to get America irrevocably on the ground in the center of the Middle East (thus fundamentally reordering the strategic balance in the region), bring to a head the country's simmering conflict with its enemies in the region, and kick off a democratic transformation of the region which would over time dissipate the root causes of anti-American terrorism and violence: autocracy, poverty and fanaticism."
Alas, Marshall overlooks the main reasoning: (a) Bush is a younger and less-accomplished Ronald Reagan, (b) like Reagan, Bush Jr. needs an issue to paint the world black & white, (c) Communism has been succeeded by International Islam as the newest world threat.
We needed to attack Iraq because Bush needed a cause to give gravitas to his otherwise aimless and worthless presidency. Before 9/11 what did Bush stand for? "Not being Clinton." And, honestly, except for the sex, what has Bush done different from Clinton? His administration has been even more underhanded with the truth and we don't even have prosperity to cushion the blow! He has driven our country into an economic free-fall, like his daddy, and has tried to inject right-wing extremists into the judiciary.
Despite the recent destruction of Yogi and Boo-Boo Hussein (whatever their names are), we still have not been able to establish why we attacked Iraq. As Krugman said yesterday:
"By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes."
We must demand accountability from our (ostensibly) elected leaders. At least treat Bush Jr. with the same respect and honor that we gave his predecessor.
As usual, Joshua Micah Marshall, from a July 22 post has managed to give a balanced anaylsis of our Iraq situation. While he has been a vocal critic of the government's reasoning and behavior, he give the neo-cons in the kitchen cabinet credit for pursuing the war in Iraq for positive ideological reasons.
That is, instead of claiming that we're in Iraq so that the Bushies could win 2002 & 2004 (which is so obvious that it's not even considered a problem - just being a politician means that you will start foreign entanglements to be re-elected; it's so much part and parcel of politics that it carries no more shame than being a politician itself) he brings some nuance.
Here's Marshall's analysis of the war reasoning:
"But over time after 9/11 one overriding theory of the war did take shape: it was to get America irrevocably on the ground in the center of the Middle East (thus fundamentally reordering the strategic balance in the region), bring to a head the country's simmering conflict with its enemies in the region, and kick off a democratic transformation of the region which would over time dissipate the root causes of anti-American terrorism and violence: autocracy, poverty and fanaticism."
Alas, Marshall overlooks the main reasoning: (a) Bush is a younger and less-accomplished Ronald Reagan, (b) like Reagan, Bush Jr. needs an issue to paint the world black & white, (c) Communism has been succeeded by International Islam as the newest world threat.
We needed to attack Iraq because Bush needed a cause to give gravitas to his otherwise aimless and worthless presidency. Before 9/11 what did Bush stand for? "Not being Clinton." And, honestly, except for the sex, what has Bush done different from Clinton? His administration has been even more underhanded with the truth and we don't even have prosperity to cushion the blow! He has driven our country into an economic free-fall, like his daddy, and has tried to inject right-wing extremists into the judiciary.
Despite the recent destruction of Yogi and Boo-Boo Hussein (whatever their names are), we still have not been able to establish why we attacked Iraq. As Krugman said yesterday:
"By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes."
We must demand accountability from our (ostensibly) elected leaders. At least treat Bush Jr. with the same respect and honor that we gave his predecessor.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 7/23/2003 02:29:00 PM.
» Post a Comment