|
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Gregg Easterbrook trips over himself, in critiquing the Bush administration at the end of a post on the Chinook helicopter crash.With each additional United States casualty, the question becomes louder: Why are we in Iraq? If the reason really, truly was that we really, truly believed Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, then our assault on Iraq was justified, but now we must leave immediately, as no banned weapons have been found. Arguing "we're there by mistake, but are obliged to pile more mistakes atop the original mistake"--even France has recently said as much!--makes no sense.
Either the Bush aministration must admit that it was wrong about weapons of mass destruction and articulate different--possibly valid--reasons for the occupation of Iraq, or we must leave immediately. Thing is, the reason for occupation was always articulated as different from the reason for invasion...so the administration has "articulate[d] different--possibly valid--reasons for the occupation of Iraq."
Easterbrook makes a Vietnam comparison with the hed to the post:LBJ, BEAR IN MIND, LET THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE IN ORDER TO POSTPONE ADMITTING A MISTAKE In the sense that both LBJ and Bush apparently overstated the danger to the US and neighboring countries of Ho Chi Min and Saddam Hussein, respectively, Easterbrook has something of a valid point...but it falls apart again when one realizes the difference between invasion and occupation.
Steven I. Weiss 11:17:00 AM
|