![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 2nd, 2005 10:54 amLast night I was listening to the radio, specifically a fairly new call-in show on public radio called Radio Open Source, and was listening to debates regarding the Iraq War. The neocon guest on the show chatted the usual talking points when I finally caught one of the arguing tactics used that bugs me.
When it comes to someone asking a neocon how the war would have been prosecuted and the country secured with significantly more troops, such as under the Shinseki plan for an invasion of Iraq, your typical neocon will say something like, "Well, but that's in the past, and we will never know for sure how different it could have been, and it's useless to speculate."
When you bring up the idea that we could have not invaded, let the inspections run their course(and find no WMDs, however, you get a statement much like, "If Saddam, a brutal dictator, had been left in power, he would have gone back to creating WMDs as soon as possible, and we're the most likely prime target."
Basically, they don't speculate about troop strength making a difference but they speculate a lot about what Saddam Hussein would have done. I find this tactic of only speculating on items that can help your case while avoiding speculation that would hurt it a specious one.
I am no fan of Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal man and he supported terrorist bombings in Israel. I opposed the invasion of Iraq before it started, back before it was cool; at the same time, I am glad Saddam is not in power anymore. US Doctrine should not be invading or infiltrating a sovereign nation just to violently depose leaders we don't like; but frankly, that's the only reason our muckety-mucks in the US government had for deciding to go to war against Iraq. Well, OK, and maybe the oil.
When it comes to someone asking a neocon how the war would have been prosecuted and the country secured with significantly more troops, such as under the Shinseki plan for an invasion of Iraq, your typical neocon will say something like, "Well, but that's in the past, and we will never know for sure how different it could have been, and it's useless to speculate."
When you bring up the idea that we could have not invaded, let the inspections run their course(and find no WMDs, however, you get a statement much like, "If Saddam, a brutal dictator, had been left in power, he would have gone back to creating WMDs as soon as possible, and we're the most likely prime target."
Basically, they don't speculate about troop strength making a difference but they speculate a lot about what Saddam Hussein would have done. I find this tactic of only speculating on items that can help your case while avoiding speculation that would hurt it a specious one.
I am no fan of Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal man and he supported terrorist bombings in Israel. I opposed the invasion of Iraq before it started, back before it was cool; at the same time, I am glad Saddam is not in power anymore. US Doctrine should not be invading or infiltrating a sovereign nation just to violently depose leaders we don't like; but frankly, that's the only reason our muckety-mucks in the US government had for deciding to go to war against Iraq. Well, OK, and maybe the oil.
