I haven't done much political posting of late, despite a plethora of potential topics. Among the thoughts I've been intending to express, of course, is my continued skepticism over the coming war with Iraq. First, of course, is the question of exactly what US policy is toward Iraq--disarmament? regime change?--and which one best achieves the interests of US national security at the least cost. The Administration, in almost everyone's view, seems to be fixated on invasion. The question is, is invading Iraq the best policy, the one that meets US interests above all others? I haven't seen much evidence that the Adminstration is even considering other policies--see Bush's own rhetoric that the alternative to invasion is tantamount to doing nothing"--and that concerns me greatly. With that in mind, this morning's Washington Post, columnist E. J. Dionne summed up my reservations almost exactly:
I have a terrible foreboding that when we look back on our debate over the impending war with Iraq, we will be disappointed in ourselves. We may end up starting a war without any real argument over what it will take to win the peace.
Like many Americans, I do not feel fully comfortable in either of the big camps lined up against each other over this war. Those of us who are doubters but not full-fledged opponents constitute, by a fair reading of the polls, about one-third of our fellow citizens.
We doubters cannot identify with those who see American power as a force for evil in the world, and we believe President Bush was right to increase pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. Many of us agree with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement over the weekend that, given the nature of the Iraqi regime, "ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity."
(continued in the next post)