Comparing the invasion of Iraq to the cuban missile crisis is a very poor analogy for a variety of reasons.
Least of which was the close proxmity of Cuba, and the direct knowledge of a Soviet build-up of OFFENSIVE missiles into Cuba.
The U.S. had a grave fear of a communist revolution 70 miles off the coast. Additonally, the Soviet leadership was "energized" by the Cuba revolution and wished to support them.
The problem is this, even under the assumption of a "worse-case" scenario of WMD in Iraq, was invasion at the cost of 90 Billion (?) necessary?
Would the invasion of Iraq the most important step for an overall goal of HOMELAND security?
I would agree with the invasion for OTHER reasons, as I have stated all along.
However, the invasion is so similar to the Nixon "back-channel" philosophy of private warfare for political gain, without the agreence of "non-partisan" depts it is disturbing.
Quote:
Originally posted by theking
He pointed out...the intel provided to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile crisis was that there were no nuclear warheads in Cuba. The President chose to ignore the intel and took the worse case position that there were in fact nuclear warheads in Cuba...and worked his strategy based upon that.
This is the option that every President has...and that is to assess the intel provided to him...and accept it at face value...or worse case it...or the opposite. Decisions have to be made...and I personally opt for a worse case scenario.
|