He was utterly wrong.
Following 9/11, when it became apparent that our President was going to commit troops in Afganistan, buchanan was again very vocal in his opposition, siting the previous defeats of the Soviet Union and England and predicting a protracted conflict with many casualties.
He was completely wrong.
buchanan starts out this latest essay with, "The fires had not yet gone out at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a year ago, before the War Party had introduced its revised plans for American empire." It should also be remembered that while the same fires were still smoldering, buchanan's friend raimondo was posting his screed gleefully announcing how the 9/11 attack had driven America to it's knees and paralized the nation.
buchanan's opening comments concerning the so-called "War Party" are pure speculation to fuel his rhetoric, raimondo's article, was reality.
As for the rest of buchanan's article, while it might appear a well balanced and thought provoking piece, there is little in it that suggests to me that buchanan's predictions will be any more accurate then his previous predictions for Kuwait and Afganistan...absolutely wrong.
In deed, buchanan's present arguments are dated, demonstrating a cold war mentality. I remember all the arm chair generals who predicted sucessful operations in Afganistan would require overwhelming military power; nothing less than Desert Storm strength. And there were always the reminders concerning the failed Soviet invasion and the coming terrible Afgan winter that would make operations next to impossible.
While these arm chair generals, and an aging political speech writer manuvered hugh armies through their battle plans and made their bold predictions of doom, our President sent in a relatively small force of special operations units, not an invasion force. These forces were supported by a weapon not in the buchanan war plans, diplomacy.
We all know Stormin Norman's quote concerning Saddam's military prowess...it would seem Saddam and buchanan studied at the same staff war college.
That is a lie. Buchanan wholeheartedly supported our operations in Afganistan.
In deed, buchanan's present arguments are dated, demonstrating a cold war mentality. I remember all the arm chair generals who predicted sucessful operations in Afganistan would require overwhelming military power;
Buchanan was not one of them.
I can see you haven't read the Article. Buchanan is not asserting that the war against Hussein will be difficult. It is what comes afterwards, the occupation and governing of Iraq and perhaps a few other countries, that Buchanan is concerned about. This is an issue few dare to address. I hope Bush is considering it.