I take the opposite view (as usual). I think it sometimes takes courage to resist the majority opinion, especially when one's leaders hold that position. Although I don't give much credit to celebrities opinions on politics, I thought what LeCarre wrote was eloquent and accurate.
I think a lot of what is going on regarding this debate is this:
The so-called "Powell Doctrine"- have a clear objective, go in with overwhelming force, and get out- which was used in Desert Storm, was to some extent a reaction to the VietNam war. Some seem to believe that this is a correct posture for any conflict, including the pending one. Some of us, however, believe that some conflicts do not lend themselves to this strategy. The world is changing, all battles are not about taking/reclaiming terrotory. For example, I think we are fighting a major battle with China right now, and we are winning. They are very rapidly becoming a capitalist culture. Other enemies are not so easily identified or located- terrorists, for example.
Bush is trying very hard to convince the world that we can and should use the Powell Doctrine in this conflict. I do not see this as that kind of battle. Saddam is a pain in the butt, but our objectives of control and containment can be better achieved through other means (some of which we are currently employing),than a nasty ground war which, in my view, will solve nothing and cause more problems than it attempts to correct.
