>>No need to repent. No new revelation here. Gore's call was consistent with
the well-known (and bipartisan) foreign policy pursued by the Clinton
administration since 1998, when it committed itself to regime change in
Iraq, but through internal means - an uprising or, more likely, a military
coup backed by the CIA coupled with economic pressure resulting from
sanctions and air strikes against military bases and infrastructure.>>
Not true. The Clinton administration commissioned studies to involve the use of the US military's ground forces, with an emphasis on special forces and airbourne. The troop build up used for the invasion in fact starts in the last years of the Clinton administration, and Gore ran on a platform that promised a lot about doing something in Iraq--as well as promising an engaged foreign policy with large military spending increases (it's pathetic when the Dems try to get the CentCom votes, isn't it?). Meanwhile Bush ran on compassionate conservatism, a disengaged foreign policy verging on isolationism, and military reform a la Rumsfeld. In other words, not really as forthcoming as Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The biggest controversies in establishment debates over regime change in Iraq (and Iraq was repeatedly identified as the 'threat' because it was supposed to be a rogue, terrorist state with WMD) were how many troops and equipment were needed to invade Iraq and then how much was needed to then hold Iraq.
>> The support of Europe and the UN was a necessary component of the strategy. This is what both Gore and Kerry meant when they said they supported "the overthrow of Saddam".>>
You need to untangle things here a bit Marvin. An 'alliance' with NATO is not the same thing as an alliance with the EU or the UN. Reviewing what ultimately happened in the US-European destruction of Yugoslavia would help you see this.
>>What was unusual - and radical - about the Bush administration was its
decision to remove Saddam directly and unilaterally by invasion rather than
subversion, by sending 100,000 US troops into Iraq. This was, of course, a
very risky and highly controversial departure from traditional US policy
since Vietnam >>
Not so, because planning before and after the 1998 act of legislation involved the use of US ground forces. Ground forces were already in Kurdish areas anyway. At any rate, the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan is the more immediate precedent. The NATO support was mostly indirect, and it was basically US forces and mercenaries that removed the Taliban.
>>- at least outside the Western hemisphere - and was resisted
by the Democrats, the Republican foreign policy establishment, the Europeans
and the UN, the international bourgeoisie and many on Wall Street who feared
its destabilizing effects,>>
It was discussed 'seriously' by them--that was the entire discussion. Unilateralism vs. a contrived multilaternalism. But 'resist' is much too much strong language. It was not a resistance of any sort.
>>and the overwhelming mass of world public
opinion. We now know who was right, and it will become clear during the
course of its second term whether the Bush administration has been chastened
by the result.>>
Well, we know what the overwhelming mass of world public opinion counts for in US politics. It starts with jack and ends with shit.
Fugazy
-- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10