I realize the op-ed I'm about to cite comes from Fox News (and, if you're even more familiar, the author is from the CATO Insitute), so you're more than welcome to dismiss.

I dismiss most of the material from CommonDreams, though I wouldn't equate the two in my mind. Maybe I'll post my thoughts on Fox News in another blog entry but that time is not now.

Keeping on track, here's some excerpts:

"The Democrats who are condemning President Bush hope that we will forget about their passive role on the U.S. military mission in Bosnia. Much to their chagrin, however, this month marks the tenth anniversary of the Balkans undertaking — so it is worth recalling how that mission got underway. President Clinton announced the deployment of troops in a nationally televised address. Mr. Clinton said this mission would be 'precisely defined with clear realistic goals' that could be achieved in a 'definite period of time.'"

"Throughout the 1996 election year, the Clinton administration led voters to believe that it would adhere to the one-year deadline. Even on the eve of the election, in late October 1996, State Department spokesperson Nicholas Burns adamantly denied that there were any changes in the Clinton plan to withdraw 15,000 American soldiers from Bosnia that December. As far as the voters were concerned, Bosnia was a non-issue — especially since the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, failed to express any interest in prolonging the military mission."

And what ended up happening?

"'Quite frankly,' the president declared, the 'rebuilding process' was taking longer than anticipated. And because of that unexpected delay, thousands of U.S. troops would have to remain in Bosnia — not just for a few extra weeks, not just for another year, but for an additional 18 months. And, note well, that Mr. Clinton did not dismiss his secretary of defense because of poor planning. Mr. Clinton spoke matter-of-factly and made it seem as if this lamentable extension of the mission resulted from an honest error in his own judgment."

This does pose an interesting question: Had President Bush admitted poor planning in Iraq, would those opposed to the conflict have jumped on board?

"We now know that our intervention would last nine years, not one. To deflect attention from the misleading prewar intelligence, one can expect some partisan activists to trot out the line, 'Well, when Clinton lied, nobody died.'"

"Thankfully, hostile action killed no American or NATO personnel in Bosnia, but watch that misleading spin. Scores of people died during NATO’s bombing raids, including civilians. It was a real war."

Is desception to engage in warfare ever acceptable? Evidently, some out there believe so.

"Some scholars take the view that if a president’s aims are worthy enough, deception can be justified. Professor Thomas Bailey of Stanford University examined the foreign policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the months preceding our entry into World War II and concluded that he 'repeatedly deceived the American people.'"

"The Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor was, to be sure, a vicious surprise attack, but contrary to his paeans for peace, FDR was anxious to get America into the war. That FDR was deceptive about his intentions seems indisputable. The controversy among scholars is whether some of his secret intentions and provocations were justified."

Again, here's another comment which should provoke the question that, if indeed a cause is deemed "noble," is it acceptable for the government to lie in order to achieve an end?

"Professor Bailey, among others, defended Mr. Roosevelt. 'Because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long term interests,' writes Mr. Bailey. Presidents must therefore act like physicians, who must sometimes tell lies 'for the patient’s own good.'"

"This is an important moment for American politics. If there is to be a congressional investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq, let us have an investigation into the Bosnia mission as well. If there is no stomach for this double endeavor, Congress ought to establish some neutral criteria for prewar representations regarding future conflicts, criteria that can lay down markers for all presidents in all circumstances."

Personally, I don't think there's an excuse for the Executive to outright lie in order to engage in a conflict. Do they need to volunteer information? No, I don't think so. For instance, natural resources in the Middle East are important to the everyday function of our country. If I were the Executive, would I be pushing this angle? No way. Nobody in their right mind, in this day in age, would. You would push the angle of weapons or the prevention of innocent people being killed.

People today either cannot accept or do not want to acknowledge that, at times, conflict is necessary in order to achieve our own self-interest.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176728,00.html