>Even though I've listen to many discussions of the Wolfowitz paper, I've never actually read thru it. I know I should read it, so I have a clear understanding of where the neocons are coming from. But I'm 99.9999% certain that my blood pressure would go thru the roof about page 2 or 3.
>
>I don't see how history can be kind to him. We as a country have a very long history of doing things wrong whenever we try to force our vision of the world on others.
>
>One thing I heard about the small force in Iraq is that Rumsfeld had this vision of attacking some of the other places that were discussed in Bush's "axis of evil". And that once it was proven that a small force could handle Iraq we would still have plenty of troops to launch another offensive. Yet again, another story I find extremely frightening. That we currently have a group of men (and Rice) in power who are willing to risk the lives of thousands of Americans to satisfy their ego.

I guess it's the attribution of motive I have the most problem with - even where I disagree. I don't think it is an ego thing - at least not anymore than it is with any intellectual defending the conclusions of a lifetime of studying and working in a field. I confess I was stunned when I read in Woodward's book that on 9-12 attacking Iraq was raised. It should be noted that according to Woodward ( and you know he had Powell as one of his sources ) the President was the one who derailed that idea immediately. Rice is a heavy hawk ( being a Russian expert can do that to you ) but she's not a neocon in this respect. She's Bush's consigliere.

Wolfowitz is an interesting case. I find him interesting becaue I really do believe he's an idealist. Whether he is right or not remians to be seen. I don't think you'd find his earlier stuff that disturbing. He was at least thinking about the area in terms of reversing a direction that lead to 9-11. Very big picture strategic thinking ( think Kennan, Marshall ) goes in and out of fashion. I remember Zbig during Carter saying the best we could hope for vis a vis the Soviets was to temporarily slow the spread of communism. Kind of scary, but you couldn't get tenure at an Ivy League school if you doubted it. ( of course you couldn't get tenure if you did not accept the innocence of Alger Hiss - and probably still can't - Venona be dammed. )

As far as risking lives goes, that's a tough one. I do think sometimes a choice that looks like war vs peace can actually be a choice of war on our terms or war later on somebody else's. I think the concern about Saddam was about a general war in the middle east. Everyone seems to forget there are people in Tel Aviv who had already decided at what point Saddam was going to have to be stopped. Properly armed, he was going to try the Salah a'din thing again. A great number of lives would be at risk. Remember what the casualty figures were in Iran-Iraq. Now add Israel and a whole lot of nukes and sarin.

I'm troubled by a lot of what i have seen in the last three years. But I also am troubled by hearing people like Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke say things that tell me they don't get it.

I don't think we have a perfect choice this time. I don't know what a change of administration would mean to national security. I think Kerry's most fervent supporters (or at least those who are fervent because they couldn't have Dean) would be burning him in effigy a year from now.

Whatever the outcome of this election I am going have mixed emotions about it.

But I think whatever the outcome we will come through it. I remember 1968 too well to see this as an even moderately equally scary time.