"We have succeeded in destroying some Al Qaida forces, but many of its operatives have scattered, their will to kill Americans still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstoneaction.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=1865&catID=298I guess Paul had read one of those:
s.
1. Why we should wait before invading Iraq - OpEd by WKC:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm"Our strategic priorities need to be kept in order: We can best face a possible fight against Iraq if we have strong allies and a weakened al-Qaeda. While we eventually may have to use force against Iraq, we should use our resolve first to empower diplomacy, with war as the last resort."
2. CLARK: FIGHTING WITH IRAQ COULD BE OVER IN TWO WEEKS; AMERICA CAN'T BE 'NEW ROME' WITH VOLUNTEER ARMY 10/7/02
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html"Another danger is that Iraq could become a battleground of fundamentalists. Under Saddam, the fundamentalists have been the enemy in Iraq. If he is replaced, Iraq could become a wide-open target for the fundamentalists from both Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which would be preaching anti-Western extremism. There is little our American soldiers can do to prevent this -- it will depend on establishing quickly an effective Iraqi government"
3. Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian
"You can get a strategically decisive result without having to use strategically decisive and destructive military power if you bring in the elements of the international law and the full diplomatic weight of the international community," he said."
4. Before Iraq: Strengthen allies, weaken al-Qaeda
By Wesley K. Clark 09/09/02
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm 5. NPQ: Clark: Fighting with Iraq could be over in Two Weeks; American Can't be "New Rome" with Volunteer Army Nathan Gardals 10/07/02
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/10-07-02.html" While we must remain strong, and occasionally take actions to anticipate and eliminate immediate threats to us, we must also recognize that our greater security will be achieved not by killing our opponents and destroying their regimes but by supporting our friends and reinforcing those who share our values."
1. The Connection w/Dick Gordon 10/10/02
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/10/20021010_b_main.asp"The general has a question: Where's NATO? In all the debate over Afghanistan and Iraq, in Congress and at the U.N., there's been very little talk about the alliance that was formed to protect and defend the U.S. and its European allies."
1. Retired General Reflects on US Policy toward Iraq by Michael McPhee
October 10, 2002
http://www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration's preemption policy and striking out.
Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
