Casus Belli, Tom Clancy and War
Tom Clancy
Here....
Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation.
"It troubles me greatly to say that, because I’ve met President Bush," Clancy said. "He’s a good guy. ... I think he’s well-grounded, both morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes."
-------
In a traditional sense Clancy is correct, No Casus Belli.
Perhaps the threshold has changed? What was the Casus Belli for the Monroe Doctrine? I'm sure the Monroe Doctine did not requre actual attack on the US before we could act....US actions in Central, South America and Cuba used the Monroe Doctrine as a starting place. I believe the point was 'it's close to our yard, thus we have interests in your choices'. Yes it's arrogant to call the Middle East our backyard, we do have interests there, it is our backyard, don't point a gun at us even if it is made of orange-plastic (which we find out about after shooting you and scraping off the gun metal paint).
If Iraq succeeds the Bush Doctrine will lower the bar.
Either way democracy was a very high bar to shoot for. A Monarch is needed. I'd love Iraq to prove that they are capable of self rule.
Someone once said that walking along a precipice makes you think sharply and clearly. Hopefully some in Iraq will look at who wants them to lose and step up to the plate to help win. The only real loser can be Iraq for throwing away their chance.
If Iraq fails everyone else will then begin closing shutters and getting ready for the storm. Failure in Iraq will promote American isolationism--bad for India, Taiwan, Israel and Europe.
I've not given up on Iraq. They must have a few leaders.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home