A War of Choice or of Necessity? :Wash Post

[jbfam4]

Taking Exception http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44381-2003Dec7.html
A War of Choice or of Necessity?

By Lawrence J. Korb
Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A25


Eight months after the Bush administration got us involved in a bloody war in Iraq, we are now told by one of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's closest advisers that Iraq was a war of choice after all. According to Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department until June 2003 and still the Bush administration's special envoy to Northern Ireland, the administration "did not have to go to war against Iraq, certainly not when we did. There were other options" . Really?

This is not what the administration told us before the war and continues to tell us to this day. On March 20, as he was sending troops into Iraq because the regime of Saddam Hussein allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al Qaeda, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told them, "We are at the point at which the risk of not acting is too great to wait longer. As you prepare, know that this war is necessary . . ." Some three weeks into the war, Powell, who had made the case for war to the United Nations, stated: "We do not seek war. We do not look for war. We don't want wars. But we will not be afraid to fight when these wars are necessary to protect the American people, to protect our interests, to protect friends."


Even more surprising is Haass's contention that despite its public pronouncements, the Bush administration knows that, because this is a war of choice, Americans will not support it unless it is relatively short and cheap. This is why the administration has changed its policy and accelerated the timetable to hand over increasing political responsibility to Iraqis, even if it means reducing what it is trying to accomplish.



Ironically, while Haass is wrong about Vietnam and the first Gulf War, he is right about Iraq. It is a war of choice -- a bad choice as it turns out. Unfortunately, he was unwilling to go public with his views, as did Gen. Eric Shinseki, while he could have made a difference. This article should have been written nine months ago when Congress and the American people had a choice. Now our only real choice is to continue to stay and absorb the casualties and the cost.

[xchrom]

1. these guys are shrugging their shoulders

and saying stupid stuff like ''what Eh-ver''.
they truly believe the rules don't apply to them.
and for those that love the addict/alcoholic description of bush -- that is one of the classic self beliefs drunks and dope fiends carry in their back pockets at all times.

[otohara]

2. How Did They Get Brass To Keep Mouths Shut?

not a peep from any of the doubters or from those who knew absolutely that this was a war of choice.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. He absolutely went on the record:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5171-2003Nov21¬Found=true

Wars of Choice

By Richard N. Haass
Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page B07

Iraq was such a war. The debate can and will go on as to whether attacking Iraq was a wise decision, but at its core it was a war of choice. We did not have to go to war against Iraq, certainly not when we did. There were other options: to rely on other policy tools, to delay attacking, or both.

[wahoo]

4. This was in the paper?

That's very liberal (very intelligent). I'm surprised it made it into the Post.

[newyawker99]

5. Hi wahoo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wahoo]

6. Thanks!

Thank you! I've heard lots of good things about this place!