On holding our horses

Mark Weaver writes:

With President Obama escalating drone attacks into Pakistan, which are further destabilizing the country, and in the process of DOUBLING the number of our troops in Afghanistan, and his “envoy” Richard Holbrooke talking paranoid neocon nonsense about how our Reagan-era-funded Taliban allies are now a “threat” to Washington and Islamabad, and the U.S. slowly wading deeper into a $trillion dollar$ Vietnam style quagmire (kind of makes you long for Bush’s relative neglect, huh?) while our nation sinks into a Depression, why are there no Congressional hearings on the next Iraq?

I think we all need to keep on eye on what the evidence is telling us (although I will admit that the evidence we see may not be the cleanest). If we look to Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair's Annual Threat Assessment presentation we can see that intelligence community believes that the strikes represent a “succession of blows” against Al Qaeda’s senior command structure for their “potential to further degrade its organizational cohesion and diminish the threat it poses.” CAP notes that CIA director Leon Panetta told reporters in late February 2009 that “operational efforts” in Pakistan “are probably the most effective weapon we have to try and disrupt Al Qaeda right now.”

And while I am all for greater transparency (which is what is called for in this strategy document), I don't think that public hearings are the answer. The Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India region is particularly dangerous in light of the weakness of the governments in the area and the possibility of nuclear proliferation (or use). But I want to not get in the weeds here about foriegn policy. My point is for us on the left to base our opinions on data versus emotion.