Three anti-war arguments answered
By Pete Hegseth, an Iraq war veteran, in the Washington Post.
The arguments are
A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise
We can bring the war to a "responsible end" but still conduct counterterrorism operations.
We are "supporting the troops" by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Mr Hegseth deals with all three.
Don't miss Michael Yon's latest, which includes al-Queda policies on smoking (cut off two fingers), and
beatings for men who refused to grow beards, and corporal punishments for obscene sexual suggestiveness, defined by such “loose” behavior as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag.
Why is the imagination of the Righteous always so lurid?
Yon even takes time out for bird photography; evidently, Iraq is especially rich in bird life and he wants to go back "after" to capture it digitally.
(via Instapundit)
1 comment:
What is the difference between an argument and a cause? Because he believes in something strongly enough to work for its realisation, does that disqualify in any way the arguments he puts forward? Especially when most of what he says is something that I would say myself and the rest is backed up by others who have been to Iraq.
I can't see, in the case of this article at least, what difference his activism makes. But thanks for the link to Source Watch, which I have just used to find out that this article in the Washington Post making a similar case was written by Bush's ex-speech writer. You have been warned.
Post a Comment