Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.

Yet another good summary of the grand strategy of the neo conservative hawks (Perle, Wolfowitz, et al.) Once again, the writer clearly details the plans, the potential benefits, and the dangers, with a basic inclination against it. I agree with the assessment of the risks, but I don't see much comment on the risks of doing nothing, and whether no action is the safest route.

I like to make this flimsy analogy (some of my friends have already picked this apart, but here goes) : A group of friends gets into a car to set out for lunch. As they drive around town, there is agreement on the fact that everyone wants to get lunch, and that time is limited. Every time one of the friends suggests a restaurant to eat at, another friend expresses opposition, and states they don't want to eat at the suggested restaurant. (We will omit a discussion of the perils of trying to make everyone happy with a single solution.) My personal policy with regard to situations like this is that the person who opposes eating at a particular restaurant (or implementing a specific policy in general for a group) needs to do more than merely express opposition. If the opposition is to be allowed to cancel a decision, then the opposition must suggest an alternative, with similar details to the offered decision so that the alternative can face the same scrutiny and possible rejection, and thus the cycle of obligation to provide fully qualified alternatives must continue until a decision is made. When you've only got an hour for lunch, eventually everyone has to consent to a decision. (The short summary of this pollicy is the idiom "put up, or shut up.")

2:54:11 PM    comment