Nice to hear some more strong voices of dissent on this issue. Anthony Zinni was interviewed on Nightline over the weekend, and on the subject of the Bush administration’s approach to Iraq, said:
“If there’s a strategic decision for taking down Iraq, if it’s the so-called neoconservative idea that taking apart Iraq and creating a model democracy, or whatever it is, will change the equation in the Middle East, then make the [public] case based on that strategic decision….I think it’s a flawed–like the domino theory–it’s a flawed strategic thought or concept….But if that’s the reason for going in, that’s the case the American people ought to hear. They ought to make their judgment and determine their support based on what the motivation is for the attack.”
I know I’m not adding much value here, but I agree. I think a great leader levels with the American people, tells them what the real strategy and reasoning is, and builds consensus. The insulting idea that it had to be sensationalized — or outright lied about — in order to gain support, undermines any and all credibility that the actual strategy might have had. I still would have opposed it, but I think it is doubly wrong when we are being lied to – that our support is being sought under false pretenses.