The War Party, then and now
AntiWar.Com
by Justin Raimondo
10/20/06
The Ledeen Doctrine – or what might be more properly called the Ledeen-Goldberg Doctrine -- is surely 'abstractly pro-war.' It values war for its own sake, and glories in the cruelty of it. It is an expression of brazen sadism as the meaning and motive of U.S. foreign policy. Goldberg claims that not many war supporters held to this satanic doctrine: that is, not many agreed with him and Ledeen about the necessity of ritually sacrificing 'some crappy little country' to the war god on a regular schedule. I, however, beg to differ. After all, this is not the sort of sentiment one would normally be proud of, or even admit to. In any case, the desire to punish the Arab world in some significant way as 'payback' for 9/11 made the choice of targets largely irrelevant. According to the Ledeen-Goldberg Doctrine, it didn't have to be Iraq. It could just as easily have been Syria, Lebanon, Iran, or Pakistan. As for his curious argument that it is 'dumbed down' to cast the Iraq debate in terms of pro-war and antiwar, one can only point to his previous writings, all of them unambiguously and even emphatically pro-war. Is he now saying his arguments then were dumb? If so, I'll give him credit for honesty...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9892
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
by Justin Raimondo
10/20/06
The Ledeen Doctrine – or what might be more properly called the Ledeen-Goldberg Doctrine -- is surely 'abstractly pro-war.' It values war for its own sake, and glories in the cruelty of it. It is an expression of brazen sadism as the meaning and motive of U.S. foreign policy. Goldberg claims that not many war supporters held to this satanic doctrine: that is, not many agreed with him and Ledeen about the necessity of ritually sacrificing 'some crappy little country' to the war god on a regular schedule. I, however, beg to differ. After all, this is not the sort of sentiment one would normally be proud of, or even admit to. In any case, the desire to punish the Arab world in some significant way as 'payback' for 9/11 made the choice of targets largely irrelevant. According to the Ledeen-Goldberg Doctrine, it didn't have to be Iraq. It could just as easily have been Syria, Lebanon, Iran, or Pakistan. As for his curious argument that it is 'dumbed down' to cast the Iraq debate in terms of pro-war and antiwar, one can only point to his previous writings, all of them unambiguously and even emphatically pro-war. Is he now saying his arguments then were dumb? If so, I'll give him credit for honesty...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9892
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
rudkla - 20. Okt, 18:53
