Horse Hockey!

Normblog passes on the following comment from John Keegan, military historian and defence editor of the Daily Telegraph.

If those who show themselves so eager to denounce the American President and the British Prime Minister feel strongly enough on the issue, please will they explain their reasons for wishing that Saddam Hussein should still be in power in Baghdad.

I'd more than happy to explain. First, let's address Keegan's framing of the proposition. This is how Keegan lays out the syllogism.

Those who denounce the President/PM support Saddam Hussein
Person X denounces the President/PM
Person X supports Saddam Hussein

Do I really need to spend much time on the fallaciousness of Keegan's argument? How does one make a leap from denouncing an unjust and unecessary war to support for Saddam Hussein? I, for one, have never made the argument that Saddam Hussein should still be the leader of Iraq. As with most anti-war advocates, I've never argued against a change in Iraqi leadership. Where I differ with Keegan and others is the means by which to enact change.

Why was invasion the only solution pursued? Please don't give me any of that, "We tried finding a diplomatic solution." As Sherman T. Potter used to say, "Horse hockey!" The Bush Administration spent far more energy using diplomacy to garner support for a military solution than it did trying to come up with a peaceful resolution. The Iraqi threat has been contained since 1991 and another year of diplomatic negotiations via the U.N. may have resulted in the exile of Saddam Hussein. Since virtually NO effort was expended in that direction, we shall never know.

What would our world look like if we trained millions of individuals to search for peaceful alternatives rather than fire an M-16?