We do not for a minute suggest that Rumsfeld be let off the hook, be absolved of responsibility for gross miscalculations and gross lack of planning in the Iraq war and, especially, the post-war period. But neither do we absolve the neo-conservatives for shooting the horse they've been riding the last four years.Amen to that.
They were the loudest proponents of an attack on Iraq from the beginning. It was the neo-conservatives who wanted to unleash the dogs of war. It was they who championed Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress and saw that their bogus defector tales of Saddam's nuclear weapons program and his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons gained attention and traction.
They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there would be no need for an American occupation. Ergo, no need for anyone to actually plan to secure the country in the wake of victory or lay the groundwork for rebuilding a nation whose water, power and sewer services were falling apart before we bombed and shelled them.
When Rumsfeld goes, so too should every neo-conservative who squirmed his way into a Pentagon sinecure. They must also bear responsibility for a war that so far has cost nearly $200 billion and the lives of more than 1,300 American troops and has damaged America's standing in the world.
They cannot be allowed to load all the blame on Rumsfeld and scoot away to lick their wounds and dream again their large dreams of conquest and empire and pre-emptive strikes.
I temporarily reopened Middle Earth Journal when Newshoggers shut it's doors but I was invited to Participate at The Moderate Voice so Middle Earth Journal is once again in hiatus.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Iraq miscalculations, who will take the fall?
Joseph Galloway of Knight Ridder writes that even though they are trying to pin the blame on Rumsfeld the Neo-cons can't escape responsibility for their Iraq miscalculations. An effort is being made to blame the debacle in Iraq on Rumsfeld by the very people who convinced him to support it. Rumsfeld is not a neo-con and we now know he was less than enthusiastic about the invasion for the same reasons he opposed a march to Baghdad in the first Gulf war. Galloway sums it up very nicely:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be Nice