12 October 2004
Brent Scowcroft speaks the truth
It seems Brent Scowcroft agrees with John Kerry:
Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on organized crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies.
Say whatever you want about Brent Scowcroft and his service as George Bush I's national security advisor. But he's been right about plenty of things, including opposing the war in Iraq:
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation especially on intelligence.
He wrote that in August of 2002. Instead of listening to an experienced, level-headed national security expert like Scowcroft (not to mention good buddy of Papa Bush), Bush continued to live in the fantasy world created for him by the neo-con zealots like Wolfowitz.
Scowcroft in a Kerry administration? Seems like they have a pretty similar worldview.
¶ 10:35 AM
Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on organized crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies.
Say whatever you want about Brent Scowcroft and his service as George Bush I's national security advisor. But he's been right about plenty of things, including opposing the war in Iraq:
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation especially on intelligence.
He wrote that in August of 2002. Instead of listening to an experienced, level-headed national security expert like Scowcroft (not to mention good buddy of Papa Bush), Bush continued to live in the fantasy world created for him by the neo-con zealots like Wolfowitz.
Scowcroft in a Kerry administration? Seems like they have a pretty similar worldview.
¶ 10:35 AM
