Magazine article USA TODAY

Antiwar Critics Not Held Accountable

Magazine article USA TODAY

Antiwar Critics Not Held Accountable

Article excerpt

All of the controversy of the President's case for war has obscured an important truth--that much of what we are learning in Iraq undermines many antiwar arguments, claims Peter D. Feaver, professor of political science and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Duke University, Durham, N.C. "An honest evaluation of the Bush decision for war requires [a determination] of the alternatives to war....

"Critics of the war effort in Iraq have largely avoided the painful scrutiny the Administration has been forced to undergo. While the press has focused attention on how emerging information, such as the interim U.S. inspections report, leads us to reinterpret the pro-war argument, no one seems to be subjecting antiwar arguments to the same scutiny."

Those made before the invasion "have been proven wrong with the benefit of hindsight," Feaver notes. For example, opponents of war asserted that United Nations weapons inspections and sanctions were acceptable deterrences, but now it is apparent that "the Iraqi people suffered mightily from the sanctions while Hussein's regime itself was actually strengthened. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.