Thomas Friedman, almost always a good read, argues that our Iraqi policy is bass-ackwards (OK, he says "upside down" but I bet it's only because he couldn't get "bass-ackwards" past those New York Times editors). He divides our enemies into deterrable and undeterrable (those who love themselves more than they hate us, and those who hate us more than they love their own lives, respectively). Based on past behavior, Hussein is decidedly deterrable, while al Quaida and there ilk are not. In short, we should be exerting most of our effort on the latter, not the former.
Another good one is by Stephen Zunes, "The Case Against War" in The Nation. He outlines why all the justifications for attacking Iraq are false. The Cliff's Notes version:
- Iraq is an enemy of al Quaida, not a supporter,
- Containment has succeeded,
- Deterrence has worked,
- Weapons inspectors are effective,
- The US does not have the legal right to impose a regime change,
- The benefits of regime change don't outweight the costs,
- Regime change will turn our allies into enemies, and
- Regime change will destabilize the region.
Read the article to see how he backs it up.
Another Nation article, unfortunately not online, is by Fred Block, entitled "The Right's Moral Trouble". He argues that the Right's perceived monopoly on morality is extremely vulnerable now that it has been shown that unregulated markets lead to immoral behavior. We just need to make the case. (And not let General Rove dictate the discussion by screaming "Iraq!" every day.)
6:32:38 PM 
|
|
