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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Re: US orders new Iraq war plans


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


Brian Auten

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]