Bomb Saddam?
How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy
A pretty good description of how Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, et al are driving the policy on Iraq, with some moderation interjected by Colin Powell. This article has a not too subtle bias, and me with my own bias, I find myself agreeing with most of the "neo con hawks" points on why their policy is correct. (Note to author, beware of grabbing these labels. Is "neo con hawk" the equivalent of "liberal", on the opposite side of the isle?)
I've been wanting to write my own essay on a general topic that can be abstracted from the Iraq debate, but let me just say here: There are always plenty of people who can argue persuasively why any action should NOT be done, and that the status quo should be preserved. It takes good leadership to weigh the risks, and take action despite fear of consequence. Status quos need to be broken on a periodic basis. "Break the structure up" is one of my personal mottos.
P.S., the Barry Goldwater book I mentioned a while back ties into all this "rise of the neo conservative" movement. I didn't finish reading the book - I should.
12:24:21 PM 
|
