Replies

Assuming Buchanan isn't mischaracterizing the positions of the "neo-cons" he named, I think that Buchanan is partially correct in disagreeing with them. However, I must disagree with Buchanan's caution on some fronts...

Iraq must be taen care of now because we cannot allow them to develop any (more) nuclear or biologial weapons capability -- it would only be a matter of time before such weapons were used against us, as long as the current regime rules Iraq.
While Buchanan is correct that would should not using a large show of military force against some of the other tagets, such as the bases and training facilities in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Egypt, nevertheless, these targets also need to be taken out, preferably via special-operations teams. (First for surveillance to identify the targets, then direct action to eliminate key people and facilities -- the latter may be more appropriate for a limited use of air strikes.)
While rattling the sabre is keeping some of the less reputable governments in line, a true sign of "repentance" would be for these states to provide the intelligence necessary to locate the terrorist sites. Also, a little "looking the other way" while the missions are carried out would show some necessary sincerity.

In short, I see merits to both sides -- the "neo-cons", for the most part, have identified the key targets and Buchanan is correct to call for at least discretion in how those targets are dealt with. I would be surprised if this isn't part of the overall mission plan, anyway. The Bush Administration seems to be fighting this from a "total war" standpoint, using covert and overt military action, diplomacy, and shutting down the terrorists' funding. Hopefully, by choosing the correct method for each sub-mission, both the "neo-cons" and Buchanan can be happy with the results.

Checkout this post to see how best to deal with Saddam. This is according to Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Weapons Inspector, Intelligence Officer for Gen. Schwartzchoff, Cold Warrior, Marine... not some policy wonk in Washington, D.C.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb15ee646fb.htm

Is the nuclear threat that real? According to Ritter, Absolutely not. We could have our weapons inspectors back in Iraq today if we wanted to.

Iraq must be taen care of now because we cannot allow them to develop any (more) nuclear or biologial weapons capability -- it would only be a matter of time before such weapons were used against us, as long as the current regime rules Iraq.

You do err, my friend, if you think it is in the U.S. interests or desires to eliminate the "current regime" in Iraq. We only want to eliminate Saddam, but leave his regime in power (which are Sunni Moslem, spelled correctly?). It would be suicide to allow Saddam's opposition to gain power (the Shiites, which comprise approximately 60% of the Iraqi population), because they are the same Islamic fundamental extremists that we are currently waging a war of terror on.

Most Americans misunderstand this hypocritical stance of our Government. Saddam must go, not because he represents a true threat to national security, but because our Govt. sold him as the devil to the American public for war propaganda. Now, that our "incomplete" war is completed; how do we return things to normal so long as the devil remains?

Again, we don't want a change in the status quo in Iraq, just a change in who sits at the head of the table. Then we can get back to what really matters; buying Iraq's oil.