A clear thinking, witty neocon is a rare find. This neocon blogger (INCITE) elaborates his case for a thinking man's support of the Bush junta in a reasonable way. In the spirit of "know thy enemy" and hopes of common ground let's see what he has to say.
Dr. Wolfowitz, or How I Supported the Right War Waged in the Wrong Way for the Wrong Reasons
The Iraq War was a necessary war waged to protect vital national security interests of the United States. But the manner in which it was explained to the American public and to the world was atrocious. And it was waged in the wrong way.
Can't argue with your criticism of the "explaining" and the "waging" of the war. But "necessary war" ?
A Yahooligan posted this some time ago: The Iraq war is like elective surgery
: Is it a good idea ? Yes, Can it wait ? Yes, Is it necessary ? No Should it be done now ? No
Let me begin by saying I will make no attempt to question any of the various operational and tactical decisions made by the military in prosecuting this war. I have no knowledge to bring to the table in those debates, so I will leave them for others. I will say that I am strongly of the lay opinion that we have always needed and still need more troops in Iraq. Of course, if you consider that (1) we have lots of troops busy herding goats somewhere in the mountains of Bosnia and Kosovo for reasons staggeringly unapparent to me, and (2) Don Rumsfeld still hasn't quite lost his raging hard-on for proving he can invade far-away lands with about 13 soldiers and a real powerful computer, you'll understand some of the factors that have prevented us from committing the necessary resources.
(1) Mandatory cheap shot at Clinton. No card carrying neocon can live without performing it five times a day... (2) Agreed. Funny line on Rummie
That aside, I'd like to focus on Iraq's place in our larger post-9/11 grand strategy, such as it is.
When we were attacked on 9/11, we realized we needed a new grand strategy based on the newly-recognized (though certainly not new) and powerful threat posed by Radical Islam. Conceptually, we faced three aspects of the broader threat -- (1) the direct threat posed not just by Al Qaeda, but also by other Muslim terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah; (2) the more subtle but still fairly direct threat posed by Middle Eastern state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran and Pakistan (and, importantly to a lesser extent, Iraq); and (3) the indirect threats posed by states whose governments permitted anti-American groups to operate within their borders as an outlet for impermissible domestic dissent, such as Saudi Arabia."
Those evil Muslin Middle Easterns.... Mix & mash to create a huge threat. Fruit salad anyone ?
(1) Let's fight all terror groups at once (except MEK) typical neocon empire mentality: Let's pick a fight with all the meanies.
Hezbollah has NEVER attacked Americans since Reagan did a "Madrid cut & run" in Lebanon in the 80's. Even before, they only attacked US forces when those were fighting on the side of Israel.
(2) More hunkering for a good fight: Iran, Pakistan and later Iraq ? At least he admits Iraq was not top of the list
(3) Add Saudi Arabia and 99% of the ME countries (having terrorists in their territory is like having sand, they all have it)to the "evil fighting to do" laundry list
Ever heard of biting more than you can chew ? As any general or parent will tell you, you must pick your battles, instead of fighting everything at once...
Who's at fault? Why, Paul Wolfowitz and the neocons, of course! They wanted to attack Iraq because (1) they like the idea of jaunting about the world experimenting with civics lessons, and (2) they thought it would help out the Israelis. So they used 9/11 as an excuse.
Huh ? A neocon admits this or is he being ironic? Even I don't think the answer is that simple...
While I agree with several Republican commentators that the war was a just and necessary one, we had the wrong reasons for starting the right war.
No kidding! And what about timing ? The economy in 2002 was just coming out of the shock of 9/11, Enron and the dot.com bust, it could not afford another scare for investors
. And the job in Afghanistan wasn't finished!!! Don't neocons study strategy ? For more than 2,000 years generals have known that waging war in to many fronts is asking for failure!
And as a result, our broader strategy for fighting Radical Islam has been harmed in terms of domestic support (which is suffering because of the Bush administration's bad sale of the war)
Being lied to has that effect on people.
and international purpose (even if we succeed in Iraq, this fiasco has taken so much out of us that we will be unable to respond to multiple other challenges in terms of the broader war in an effective way; we will be "spent" as a society). This is a shame, and Bush deserves a lot of blame for it.
YES!!! This is my main beef with this war too. Finally a neocon sees it. A perfect example of pyrrhic victory
Too bad the only credible alternative to Bush is someone I wouldn't trust to run a grass-cutting business, much less my country.
Posted by: Answerman
Now the "Kerry is scary" motto. Sigh... And this guy looked like someone with a brain. Too bad he can't take his conclusions all the way and cut through Karl Rove's BS.