no new wars, yet

Arthur:

I would argue, and indeed I did argue at the time, that even if everything the Bush administration claimed had been true, the war was still not justified -- and that it was definitely not strategically advisable longer term.

I submit that even if WMD had been found in Iraq, the negative consequences flowing out of the U.S. occupation still argue conclusively against this war. As explained in this post and the Peter Bergen article it excerpts, we vanquished one foe only to breathe life into a worldwide jihadist movement. We traded one enemy for a multitude of enemies. Had Iraq possessed WMD, that is still a remarkably ill-advised exchange. And make no mistake: we would have had a prolonged occupation in any case, and it would have led to the identical, profoundly negative results.

So this is the possible calamity that now awaits us: if we concede, even impliedly, that the war on Iraq would have been justified if only the intelligence had been correct, then what if intelligence indicates that Iran represents a similar or even worse danger today? In fact, almost everyone already seems to be convinced that Iran does represent that kind of danger, a danger that exceeds that represented by Iraq, assuming all the claims had been true, by several orders of magnitude.

This could easily lead you to wonder why the war on Iran hasn't already begun -- or if, someday in the not too distant future, Bush will inform us, via a hastily announced presidential address to a waiting world, called amid black and threatening clouds and whispers of doom, about attacks on Iran only after they have started.

things to be thankful for this thanksgiving:
1. we havent started a new war in over 2 years.