« John Danforth Speaks up for OTHER White Christians | Main | Promoting Democracy-- Another Quality Debate »

June 17, 2005

Comments

Marc Schulman

Zap,

I have to side with Oxblog on this one. In doing so, I'm assuming that, had an American written the memo, "safeproof" would have been used instead of "proof," in which case the British Chiefs wanted assurances that the plans were safeproof against Iraqi WMD.

Zap

Perhaps. As I read the rest of the memo carefully, there's much that is concerning (info campaigns, setting conditions, creating legality, etc.), and much that is obviously just planning (which still seems fairly irresponsible considering, in my view, we had a bigger enemy elsewhere to take down, discredit, roll back; and this move into Iraq cost us the global backing that would have made the war on terror much more successful). Adesnik could have used a couple different sections to support their sincere belief in Iraq's WMDs. I'm sure there's more to come, all in good time.

Marc, in case you're checking for a response. Nobody can accurately accuse me of being soft on radical Islam (and I encourage readers to check out your coverage of of Europe's problems). I just parted ways with Bush on Iraq, and mourn the thought of what all the assets deployed there could have done in the bigger, global picture.

Ronald Rutherford

I know that this meme:
"this move into Iraq cost us the global backing that would have made the war on terror much more successful"
has been used by many to say we have alienated our allies and set us up for unilateralism accusations.
But after a paltry amount of help from our allies in Afghanistan, I think they would consider the task done and go on their merry may no matter what we asked of them. We can see how they reacted when they were affected by terrorism in that they were willing to appease instead of standing up to terrorism. The notable exeption being Britain.
I too would like to see more memos to see if this is a smoking gun, but as far as "proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons..." I would posit it to imply how to overcome these potential problems faced on the battlefield. No country would send their military into a death trap without sufficient safeguards. As the military were being deployed all measures of biological and chemical gear were sent to the troops as safeguards.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

AlsoThinkTank

Blog powered by Typepad