Yes. That Sestak. I am not making this up. It is real. Shocker, he is running as a Dem.
Mr. Arkin isn't impressed.
Joe Sestak's argument with the Iraq war is standard John Kerry fare: The Iraq war was not wrong per se, it was just undertaken at "the wrong time," according to Sestak's campaign website. The United States should have finished the job in Afghanistan -- "win the peace" -- and then turned its attention to Iraq.Yes, the CNO would love to say, "Yes sir, Congressman Sestak."
And that's not all. If the United States had finished its objective in Afghanistan first, Sestak says, "we could have later brought, if needed, an undivided U.S. force to Iraq within a large Arab-led regional coalition."
Huh? At what point in time does Sestak think that the United States could have cobbled together a "large Arab-led regional coalition" to undertake preemptive war against Iraq?
Sestak points to Desert Storm, an international response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Kosovo, the "humanitarian" intervention years in the making and limited to coercive air strikes, as potential models for a successful second Iraq war.
(Sestak, it should be pointed out, worked on the National Security Council staff from 1994-1997 in the Clinton administration, toiling on the former Yugoslavia; which I guess partially makes it his war.)
So, let me get this right -- Sestak says Saddam was not a threat and yet he argues that we should have gone to war against him with some kind of Arab-led coalition anyway?
Sestak, in other words, is just another Washington technocrat who believes nothing. And as a career military man who ultimately believes in military solutions, he can't and wouldn't say we should never have attacked Saddam Hussein in the first place.
Sestak says that "our military is a national treasure that should not be used recklessly" but what he really means to say is that it should only be used recklessly by him.