Two more articles on Gulf War II. The first from today’s New York Times by Martin Viorst. He argues convincingly that the Bushies are so eager to go to war, they they are downplaying the huge risks involved. Viorst joins the growing chorus of analysts who call for patience and containment in the battle with Hussein. From the Israeli perspective, Yoel Marcus says that Sharon’s gung-ho attitude about Gulf War II is like riding the back of a tiger. As Uri Avneri noted, Sharon tried empire building once before in Lebanon, and Israel paid the price in rivers of blood.
Addendum: In todays New York Times, Nicholas Kristof hammers home the point that war should be a last resort, not a first option.
Addendum II: My favorite Times columnist, says it all here.
In that earlier posting, I defined a moral litmus test that any one who calls for war must be willing to meet, viz. the willingness to fight themselves and sacrifice their own children. When critics say Bush has failed to make his case, they are saying that he has not convincingly shown why any one of us should go to war and sacrifice our children or the children of Iraq. When looked at in this perspective, the comparison of those who oppose this war to those who oppossed fighting Hitler, is disingenuous. Most of the voices oppossing this war, including the op-ed writers I bring above, are hardly pacifists.