(Blitz-invasion?; 06-02; p.4)

Exemplifying Iraq, Michael Lüders wrote in 1998: "On 31. October the American Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act and put almost 100 million Dollars at the disposal of the Iraqi opposition for the fight against Saddam Hussein. Which opposition one might have thought of? The exile groups abroad, mostly known is the Iraqi National Congress based in London, do only dispose of some dozens of activists which have similar influence in Iraq as the PDS [Party of Democratic Socialism] in Bavaria [known for its tradition of overwhelming ruling of Christian Social Unionists]. It does not go without irony, if the very American supreme commander in the Golf region, Gen Anthony Zinni, rightly states that there is 'no life-threatening opposition against Saddam Hussein' in Iraq." (Translated, original quote in German; cf. Lüders, M: "Das Dilemma der Sanktionen" [translated: The dilemma of sanctions], in: Die Zeit no. 48, pp. 8 and 10, here p.10. 19. November 1998.)

• Constructing wanted "necessities"

One's own acts are depicted as conditioned by other obligations, alternatives are excluded.
E.g. within the framework of NATO one talks of obligations despite the fact that - as may be read in the founding document of the international organisation, the Washington treaty - the only obligation of the equal member states is to regard an attack on the territory of one as an attack on all members.
Which measures, especially military measures, the members consider appropriate to react, are - within the limits of the United Nations' Charta - subject to their respective decisions.

Besides, credibility is preferred to assessment of consequences. Thus, ways once followed will be followed again, others will neither thought of nor tried. The better argument does not count then, but holding a once gained position. (read on here)