|
"Those who have criticized the administration for failing to send enough troops to fight the war, failing to plan adequately for the postwar crisis and failing to react properly when it came are right. But Democrats should not be so quick to embrace these attacks unless they are willing to accept the corollary: Just because Bush did the wrong thing in 2003 doesn't mean that we can do the wrong thing now."
"Insult to Injury in Iraq," Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2006
[Editor's Note: Prior to Frederick W. Kagan's 2006 Con position statement above, his position was Pro the U.S. attack on Iraq as indicated in his 2003 article below.]
"Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, was defeated and driven out in 1991, and committed itself in that year to a series of binding international agreements to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and allow international agencies unfettered access to verify its compliance. That it has not complied with those agreements over the intervening 12 years is beyond doubt. No responsible person can claim that Iraq has disarmed.
Iraq has defied the international community, moreover, in the face of crippling economic sanctions and even the limited use of military force. The possibility that Saddam will see reason, or that someone in his carefully purged and watched inner circle will decide to remove him and then comply with the agreements he made, is minuscule.
Unless a miracle occurs or we lose our will, this war will come. Fighting it without surprise, at the enemy's convenience, may prolong it and cost the lives of many more Americans and allies and Iraqis. In this situation, the time to strike should be determined in accord with military expediency and on no other timetable. Only that course of action is ethically defensible."
"War Sooner Rather Than Later," Weekly Standard, Feb. 21, 2003
|
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
