"A NEW study commissioned by the US Army's influential war college has accused the White House of taking America into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic campaign against global terrorism. The study, by Professor Jeffrey Record, a veteran defence analyst and former air force adviser, describes the invasion of Iraq as "a war of choice rather than a war of necessity" and urges the Bush administration to focus on targeting the threat from al Qaeda to avoid further stretching US forces already close to breaking point. His report comes just days after the influential left-wing, Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which opposed the war, accused the Bush administration of "systematically misrepresenting" the threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The study also claims the current military and intelligence campaigns are "dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious" and likely to suck the US into conflict with states that pose no serious threat. The author, who has written six books on military strategy, adds that the anti-terrorist effort is "strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate American military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security". Its publication, a day after Paul O'Neill, the former US treasury secretary, announced that he had never seen any evidence to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, delivers another blow to George W Bush's credibility at the start of a presidential election year. In a series of interviews over the weekend, Mr O'Neill said in 23 months as a member of the US National Security Council he had heard "allegations and assertions" but nothing that amounted to proof that Saddam Hussein either possessed or was developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. He also claimed that removing the Iraqi dictator had been a Bush administration priority policy within days of its inauguration and more than eight months before al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001." Full story here: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/7866.html Sam
Yep, I knew something like that was up from day one. Bush - "this war is not about oil, it is about oi.... keeping peace in our great nation!!!". When will some people wake up and realise that he's a complete oil hungry dolt? If you ever followed bush's pre-government history you would find that he was an oil tycoon, and was only out for himself, and financial gain.
I don't think it was entirely about oil, but I don't believe for a second that the reason they went in was the reason they gave... Sam
Very true, it wasn't just about the oil, but that was a big part of it (if your an oil tycoon, would you pass up an opertunity like that?) But what I think is kind of strange, the "most powerful" country's military is at the breaking point due to one miss-calclation. Makes me laugh a lil.
Hmm...I remember reading some figures somewhere that the US's defence budget is something like 60 times larger than the next biggest! IIRC, they have some kind of policy of needing to be bigger than the next two combined or something... Sam
Without being for or against the war, pro or anti Bush, I only have one thing to say... It's not suprising that something like this has surfaced. What people HAVE to remember is that this is an election year. It doesn't matter if the Iraq war was by choice or by necessity, the other parties (Liberals) will find something wrong with it. It's political nature to slam the opposition and try to discredit everything and anything they tried to accomplish. I won't be suprised if the Republicans fired back with something slamming the Liberals real soon. It's best not to trust sources like this, especially when it's party against party. Jeffrey Record is a die-hard Liberal and seriously anti-Bush / anti-republican so it's best to take what he says with a grain of salt and draw your own conclusions based on reported facts.
"A NEW study commissioned by the US Army's influential war college..." Surely the army wouldn't be too hasty to slam the war? Sam
I'm not saying they are, I'm not sayijng they aren't, like I said, all I am saying is that this is an election year, it's not suprising at all for people to find fault in nearly everything the current administration is doing, especially the Iraq situation - the same thing would happen no matter if it were Republicans or Democrats in power, so it's not that I'm pro-Bush either. Besides, the reason that it was "commissioned" by the USAWC is that Jeffrey Record is a visiting research professor there. If you look at their web site, there is nothing on it to indicate that the war college agrees with him or not. In fact, it could be argued that the article from The Herald is somewhat misleading by stating "A new study commissioned by the US Army's influential war college..." Again, I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, I'm just throwing what I know out there.
Didn't think you were- I was just asking but it probably sounded a little harsher than I meant! Frankly I dont think it matters too much who the next US president is, from what I can see they are all as bad as each other! Sam
Hahaha... No, just wanted to make sure that EVERYONE knew I wasn't defending or slamming anything. Don't want to get into an argument like that again. Know what I mean? Actually, it's not really the President who really calls the shots, especially in war. He's more of a figure head with influence. In situations such as this, it's more civilian and military organizations such as the CIA/FBI and Joint Chiefs of Staff that make the call. That's why everyone sees each President "as bad as each other". I tried to make the argument in a thread months ago that the people don't control the government anymore, it's all clandestine organizations and big money (think RIAA, et al) who have the power to infuence politics.
Thats very true- especially in the US. How much money is actually spent on an election campaign? I bet its more than some countries' GNPs! Sam
Are you kidding me? Absolutely it is, even with the so-called campaign reforms there have been. According to opensecrets.org, the amounts spent on the 2000 election was: Bush: $193,088,650 Gore: $132,804,039 Buchanan: $38,806,146 Nader: $8,433,778 Browne: $2,131,301 Total for the top 5 candidates: $375,263,914 That was just the presidential race, I'm not even going to get into the congressional races...
