Monday, September 23, 2002

The Cakewalk of Iraq

Earlier this year Ken Adelman of the Washington Post wrote a widely circulated article on a Cakewalk in Iraq. Adelman basically asserts that overthrowing Sadddam will be an easy task.

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

As I listened to extempers cite this article over and over, I was thoroughly convinced that Iraq would be a pushover to conquer. But, the article provided no reason for why to attack Iraq at all...still, I believed we should attack Iraq because my mentor Mike Knight was a hawk and influenced my political views so much.

Going to the (what I would consider to be) liberal Signature School this year has helped put Iraq in perspective (not implying that Mike was a bad influence)--Iraq may be a danger to stability in the Middle East, but so is our blind support of stance on Iraq has subsequently changed from a hardline confrontationist to a more skeptical supporter of Bush's war on terror. The breaking point had to be when Bush refused Iraq's proposal to accept weapons inspections. So--Bush is not settling for ANY solution except war. How civilized.

Brian Balta of the Hoosier Review wrote an article on the evolution of his stance toward Iraq, No. He presents a concise essay on reasons to not attack Iraq, which very similarly paralells my own views; reading No is highly recommended.


Post a Comment

<< Home