"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

February 06, 2004
Rewriting history

For those wondering just exactly what the Bush re-election campaign's strategy to explain the mess in Iraq is going to be, consider this

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PART of President Bush's National Security Strategy, unveiled in September 2002, was its mention of preemptive action against "emerging threats before they are fully formed."

The part that boggles my mind is the idea that anyone is suggesting that Hussein was some kind of "emerging" threat instead of having been a 30-year thorn in the side of international relations and the subject of threats, resolutions, sanctions, and failed assassination attempts.

This has been described by foreign policy mandarins as a diplomatic earthquake that has overthrown decades, if not centuries, of devotion to the doctrines of containment and deterrence. Iraq was widely seen as the test case of this "radical," uniquely "neoconservative" approach.

"Centuries" of containment? If there's been any country using a policy of 'containment' for centuries, I'm unaware of it. I know the British historically tried to keep enemy navies off the seas, but is that "containment" or "quarantine" or a "blockade" - none of which seem to be the same thing in the author's definition? And does it count at all if they didn't simultaneously attempt a land containment/quarantine/blockade?

Or maybe I was boggled by this quote they use from, from Wesley Clark:

Nations and alliances should move early to deal with crises while they are still ambiguous and can be dealt with more easily, for delay raises both the costs and risks. Early action is the objective to which statesmen and military leaders should resort.

In principle, I agree with this. Stop the problem before it becomes a national or international crisis, but that wasn't Iraq, okay?

Iraq was long past the crisis state. It was an international stalemate.

There is no way you can pretend that last year was "early" or that the situation with regard to Iraq was "ambiguous." The world lined up around Iraq, time and again. Supporters, neutrals, detractors, officially-neutral-but-doing-business-on-the-side, morally-superior-but-needing-oil, secretly-supportive-but-publicly-neutral, you name it, there was a faction for it.

Boggles the mind to think someone might seriously argue that the Bush Administration was just implementing Clark's idea, doesn't it? But I'm honestly thinking they might try it.

Don't get me wrong, okay? That was just an idea that occurred to me as I started to read the article. I recommend that you read it yourself. It's really interesting.

Posted by AnneZook at 03:28 PM


Comments

I would point out regarding the Clark remark, that like the vast majority of military people he wants the diplomats and politicians to get involved and solve problems before using the military.

People would be amazed how dovish the professional military is, especially those who have been in combat. Perhaps because the military prepares for the worst, they really hope that someone will prevent it.

Posted by: Bryan at February 6, 2004 07:03 PM

Well, I wouldn't be surprised that the military is 'dovish.' It makes perfect sense. They spend their lives training for the worst, and the military leaders study the odds for every potential situation they can think of.

Killing people to make a point, or attain a goal, is a very chancy proposition and it's less and less successful these days.

Posted by: Anne at February 9, 2004 11:16 AM