The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
List, I'd like to thank Hassan for the article on Benador. I don't believe it to be that convincing, however. My reaction is, so what? Let me get this straight: it's news because controversial thinkers hire a public relations specialist so that they can propagate their views? Would it also be news if those controversial thinkers wrote for the Institute of Policy Studies or the current Project on the Present Danger? I'm not disputing the fact that individuals like Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, etc. have written and talked up the possibility that a war in Iraq could have larger, regional ramifications. I'm disputing the automatic assumption that because individuals like Perle, Ledeen, Krauthammer, etc. write articles, op-eds and reports and have administration "connections", their word is automatically administration policy. Even the case of Perle and the Defense Study Board - just because the Defense Study Board looks at an issue or asks for a briefing doesn't make it policy. The "American War Hawk" accusation betrays, IMHO, a significant ignorance of how White House/grand strategic policy is made, how the internal policy-making apparatus works, and how military planning is done. Cheers, Brian Auten _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk