And after the creation of the convenient empire, what then? Empires don't run themselves for free yanno. Nor maintain themselves against counterrevolution by means of niceness.

I don't know. The 'puppet' regimes of Germany and Japan seem to be running themselves pretty well. Let's hope our leaders have the wisdom to try the same trick in Iraq.

Speaking as an American I have yet to hear anyone here even remotely advocating empire for empire's sake. If anything most people are still isolationist. We've just been thrust into this role by everyone else. If you ask people here what they would really like to do they will tell you that the US should withdraw all aid and military support from the entire world and let others deal with the worlds problems for a change. We'd definitely be sure and tell anyone with designs on France and Germany that if they were invaded we sure wouldn't show up.

So even if you might think of it as a "convenient empire", we won't. We'll do everything we can to create a stable government and then leave. We might keep a base there just so our sons and daughters can visit every now and then on big, grey cruise ships. But we don't want an empire. We just want friendly nations who don't go blowing us or anyone else up. If those same nations want to freely trade with us then so much the better. But if you leave us and everyone else alone we'll most probably leave you alone.

As I watched the towers burn, I said, "They've made the same mistake the Japanese did. They've hit us just hard enough to really piss us off.

Of course, I said this through gritted teeth and with a whole lot more profanity, but still...

There is no possibility of an American Empire.

Once I would have argued the other position, but I've become convinced by my reading of history that, to maintain such an edifice, there are requirements the United States is unwilling to meet:
-- A huge army, kept full by conscription;
-- Logistical continuity with the provinces;
-- A domestic economy that can be made dependent on the continued possession of the provinces;
-- A nobility that can be made to see colonial expansion as an avenue toward personal and family aggrandizement;
-- A populace more interested in the expansion of the State's powers than in its own freedoms and personal fortunes.

America has its faults. Its government has many faults. But we're too attached to fundamental concepts of rights, and much too prone to minding our own business, to become a nation of empire-builders.

The United States has prosecuted its own soldiers for war crimes. The United States has freed its own protectorates. The United States has devoted billions of dollars to the rebuilding of nations it's defeated in war. How could a nation that would do those things voluntarily undertake the subjugation of the peoples of lands so far away that we can't even find them on our maps?

"I hope Americans realise what a public pickle Blair is getting himself into over this."

Brian,

This American realizes the huge chances Blair is taking to his political career. He is standing by his convictions resolutely, even though the vast majority of Britons oppose the war. For that, I can only admire him. (And I use the "a" word rarely.)

>>(b) putting whatever pressure is necessary on any government anywhere which is now not chasing terrorists to switch to chasing terrorists with comparable zeal to the USA, thereby making the USA, and the West and the World in general, massively safer from terrorist attack than we all are now.

I see. Will pressure be brought to bear on the Turks to stop terrorizing the Kurds, on the Russians to stop terrorizing the Chechians, on the Israelis/Palestinians to stop terrorizing each other, etc?

I didn't think so.

This is why the "making the world safe for democracy" stuff rings so false. If we put pressure on our ALLIES to behave, it would be different -- but we don't.

>>How could a nation that would do those things voluntarily undertake the subjugation of the peoples of lands so far away that we can't even find them on our maps?

Simple. The necessary atrocities are farmed out to the local Quislings -- this way the U.S. electorate doesn't have to look at them.

A brief look at Indonesia shows how this is done.

It's precisely the utter confidence in the US displayed in this thread; this belief that US rule or influence will always be basically intrinsically benign, which scares us so much. The idea of any one government, representing the interests of a small minority of the world's population, running the world, and no longer listening to the opinions of other governments, is not pleasing to me.

"How could a nation that would do those things voluntarily undertake the subjugation of the peoples of lands so far away that we can't even find them on our maps?"

On the other hand, were this subjugation to occur, who apart from a few foreign policy wonks would even care? That's another scary aspect of this idea; you're proposing that the world be run by a government elected by the populace of what is essentially a pretty insular country.

Also, do you think other democracies should be given some say in what goes on, or should US just rule the roost? If there is some power-sharing, should this take place in a formal context (like some united nations of democracies), or on a case-by case basis of alliances, treaties & agreements?

It appears that you are not disagreeing with the proposition that saddam and Iraq are a problem, and that they should go.

By trying to prevent war with Iraq, you are actualy hurting your cause. the pacifists are expending their political capital for a cause in which they are obviously wrong. After Iraq has been defeated, the pacifists will look even worse.

When the US sets our sights in the next country (Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea?), the pacifists will be ignored, since they will obviously have been in support of the wrong side previously.

In other words, stop wasting your time trying to stop the right course of action, and wait until the US over-steps and then try to stop us. The American people can be incluenced, but if you have already discredited yourself, it will be harder for you to have influence.

Byna, don't bet on this: "the pacifists will be ignored..."

In the 80's, American medium range missiles in Europe brought out the "pacifists" protesting in the millions. The Soviet (remember them?) missiles didn't. And yet when this and other American moves placed the Evil Empire on the dust bin of history, did the "pacifists" lose their influence? Saturday proved that to be false.
OBTW, the term pacifist is much too kind. There would have been legions carrying signs demanding of Saddam that he disarm and free his people if they were pacifists. What you witnessed Saturday was an exercise in protest against US policy.

A_t, the US didn't "run things" following August, 1945, even though they held the nuclear monopoly and military preeminence. Why would the same country, the same people, make a different decision now? if it's because you believe only foreign policy wonks would care about the subjugation of the world, you've forgotten or don't realize the free press and it's power. The election following the subjugation of any country would turn on that event and the incumbunts would be swept out of office.

Thanks for the outstanding analysis. I agree completely.

When one considers the tremendous danger terrorists now present (via weapons of mass destruction), it is clear that the United States must create a world in which no government anywhere will support terrorists that threaten us.

We will do this out of self defense. We do not need to be distracted by things like trying to solve all the injustices in the world (one of the other commenters mentioned the Kurds). Most people in the US and elsewhere have not yet made the mental leap needed to understand that this is a deadly serious issue about the defense of our civilians. In those circumstances, we will do what is necessary. If that means setting up a despot somehwere because we can't set up a suitable democracy, so be it. That's their problem, not ours!

The Bush administration has been quietly putting out the word that an untraceable biological attack on the US that causes mass casualties will result in THE END of every regime that might possibly have been behind it. THAT is the sort of deadly seriousness that is needed here.

This isn't a matter of empire. It a matter of defense. If we need to temporarily set up an empire or two to achieve it, then we must do so. But the United States cannot and will not run an empire, as pointed out by the author of this blog. Not for any length of time. We aren't that kind of people... we do not have the ideology or the determination to do that sort of thing..

Let the world beware! If we have to kill 10 million people to protect our civilians from a huge smallpox attack, then we will reluctantly do so. We demonstrated in World War II that we can be ruthless, and ruthlessness is called for in this kind of serious situation. As another poster commented, the attack on 9-11 was the worst thing the Islamicists could do - to themselves... well, almost the worst thing. Let them turn loose smallpox or another contagious biological agent, and Afghanistan will look like kids with cap guns.

The iron logic of empire could easily have turned the US into an empire, by supplying the missing elements F. Poretto correctly cites, if the world were in the same state it was in Augustus' time. The saving factor is that the world is so much less stable and technological developments are moving so fast that the evolution to empire will not work today. Cultural hegemony is possible, but even that can disappear overnight. But as anti-missile programs and security tech make state-sponsored terrorism less and less likely to be successful, good old America isolationism is likely to return. The business of America is, after all, business, not empire.

What A_t misses is that most Americans would rather have absolutely nothing to do with foreign nations, aside from trade--"Oooh, this dress is from Austria?" Political and cultural isolationism is in the blood.

You know why most American high school kids don't know where Iran is on a map? They don't care. They're not stupid, they just had little reason to be particularly interested.

While isolationist in spirit, most Americans simply wish the rest of the world would stop screwing everything up when left to their own devices (Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Milosevic, Japanese Imperialism, bin Laden, etc.). When the "screwing up" is large enough, call out the G.I.s.

Lastly, most who claim that America desires an empire are missing something: If America wanted that, it could have had it yesterday. The military power possessed by America is simply breathtaking and there is no nation--particularly Arab nations--that could withstand more than a week or two of full onslaught. It would be a forgone conclusion were it the case.

The more I read about the coming conflict, the more pro-war I become. But seeing the track record of foreign policy in America's recent past (Panama, Haiti, Nicaraqua, hell even Iraq itself) I just become incredibly reluctant to allow Bush the green light to depose Saddam. Whether you blame his incompetence or the media's constant focus on his incompetence, I'm sure fears of what Bush and oil-related interests will do to Iraq after the war drives the anti-war demonstrations at least as much as general anti-American sentiment.

TJ Madison asks:

Will pressure be brought to bear on the Turks to stop terrorizing the Kurds, on the Russians to stop terrorizing the Chechians, on the Israelis/Palestinians to stop terrorizing each other, etc?

I believe pressure is being brought on the Palestinians to stop blowing up Israeli children, but the other "counterexamples" miss the point of what the war on terror is all about.

The U.S. is not out to eradicate violence from the planet, and it is not even out to get rid of every terrorist organization. Rather, it is targeting the Islamic terrorists who attacked us and their state sponsors. The Russians, the Turks, and the Israelis did not attack the U.S., and are not sponsoring those who did. Therefore, they are not our enemies in this war.

Simple, eh? Now, the Russians etc. might be misbehaving, but as far as we are concerned, that is not our problem just now because they are not trying to kill us.

Brian, a solid job--you finally wrestled the pig down and did it justice--as a blogger myself, scribbling about Iraq is a difficult task, at least if brief and pithy are your guideposts.

Having said that, I simply am befuddled by the comments of A_T and TJ Madison. Perhaps it is my provincial Americanism, but i sense that lurking within their posts is the charge of American Empire...that somehow we have designs on Iraq, other than de-militarization and regime change.

Mr Mealing sums it about up, but Ill expand: Most Americans could care less about the larger world, outside of travel, tourism and trading opportunities. If the European union could prove itself capable of policing its own front yard, if the UN took anything other than itself seriously, If the mid-east was good for anything else other than oil and producing evermore virulent strains of despotism....you must get the picture by now.

The global governing model has failed, largely. The uni-lateral actions of a constitutionally governed sovereign are what's left. Thank goodness are intentions are for the good, or you'd really have soemthing to psot about.

It never ceases to amaze me that more-or-less the same people who claim Americans don't understand other countries and cultures then demonstrate so little understanding of Americans. I know of very few, if any, who regard *any* war as glorious. It is a job that needs to be done, under certain circumstances, just like emptying a cess-pool. It ain't fun, but it's just gotta be done.

No ordinary American wanted to rule Japan, or Germany, or South Korea, and would just as soon bring all the troops home. period, end of statement. However, that cess-pool fills up, and it's gotta be drained.

I teach American govt, among other things, and my students have been, over the years. a nice cross-section of Middle America -- the Heartland. Uniformly they want other people to enjoy what we do -- free and freely contested elections, free speech, freedom to practice their religion, relatively free markets (their are some crooked, greedy bastards out there, after all), the right to try new things and keep your winnings if there are any, free or cheap education, freedom from fear of your own govt, private property rights, fair courts and access to them, relative equality of rights and privileges, etd. They simply don't see how we could impose this by force or why we should need to, since every day they watch new immigrants flood to us in search of these things.

We don't to be loved. We don't care. We would like to be respected because we have earned it, and we do care, in some circumstances. We want other people to rule themselves as they wish, so long as they leave others alone.

In short, we would like good neighbors. By definition, these are folks who live nearby, offer help when you need it, leave you alone when you want it and know the difference. We actually do try to be good neighbors. Unfortunately, not all others are equally good neighbors *cough France* and others, like Iraq, et al are criminals. Time to empty the cess-pool

Rather than bringing the Great Satan to its knees, the attack caused it to rise to its feet and start moving.

Brian:

Bulls-eye.

I would add that sitting astride the world's second largest known oil reserves would make the enterprise potentially self-financing, and would add economic leverage to the arsenal of tools needed to turn the tables on terrorists and their apologists.

The best possible gaurentee against American Empire is firmly in place; America doesn't care one whit about the rest of the planet. American doesn't want to even THINK about the rest of the planet. The world can rest assured that the moment America feels reasonably secure from the world intruding in unpleasant ways, America will cheerfully forget all about it. Indeed, the extent to which America has remained willfully ignorant of the rest of the planet even whilst engadged in more or less dominating it is extraordinary. I myself, while serving in the US Armed forces during the Cold War, not infrequently met US Soldiers that had never heard of the Berlin Wall or realized that there was a distinction between East and West Germany.
To subjugate another people one must have not only the proper mindset, which America lacks, but must even more fundamentally one must percieve that other people as worth subjugating, which America, perhaps insultingly, does not. And it is hard to imagine any combination of social or economic forces that might, in the foreseable future, penetrate America's adamantine self-absorbtion.
So relax, world; America doesn't care enough to conquer.

For the first time I see somebody say it like it is - simple, unvarnished truth. Amen, brother.

Will pressure be brought to bear on the Turks to stop terrorizing the Kurds, on the Russians to stop terrorizing the Chechians, on the Israelis/Palestinians to stop terrorizing each other, etc?

To be frank, those conflicts are of less value to us than stopping the "big fish" currently fouling the sea. Our priorities, as they seem to be, aim us towards the most egregious state offenders and the ones that have the best chances of influencing international terrorism. What we're doing is focusing on the biggest problems (and within that set, the single largest two: Iraq & North Korea) and once we win we move on. Hence the lessened attention on Afghanistan, which I'll admit is somewhat poor form on Bush since our superficial lack of effort in rebuilding has given our critics one of the few good reasons to oppose an Iraqi invasion. Also hence the relatively little focus on Iran.

Sequential regime change and then we turn to the smaller, localized problems. Turkey and the Kurds are a special case since we'd like to go through Turkey to invade Iraq through the north. That's probably going to result in an ugly compromise (ignoring the Kurdish independence movement) if Bush decides we really need that northern option. If this happens, it would be a victory of politics over liberty.

I'm sure Bush isn't as buddy-buddy with Putin as he once was, so Chechyna should not be written off so cavalierly. Since it involves Muslims seeking independence, it would be a massive PR coup for Bush to putting public pressure on Putin to back off and let them govern themselves. Now that we're out of the ABM political entanglement and now that Russia has essentially sided with France on the Iraq issue, we have less to lose by supporting their independence. Of course, I'm partially talking out of my ass here since my knowledge of the conflict and the region is limited.

Israel/Palestine can't be resoved as long as both sides continue to see benefit in fighting. It's too emotionally heated and embedded in the culture over there to get involved any more than we are now. Bush's stance that Palestinians won't be relevant until they accept democracy and liberty is the correct one to take.

Those side issues (to the US for the moment) need to be addressed clearly and with an absolute backing for liberty and freedom. But they can't all be addressed at once.

American's do not want an empire. They want other countries to behave. 'Behave' means you don't start wars, and you don't support and protect terrorists. If you behave, America will leave you alone. If you don't behave, America will very reluctantly (though very effectively) move in and force you to behave. If you don't want American interference, then act civilized and we will be happy to leave you alone.

Riedel, what did Bush have to do with Panama, Haiti, Nicaraqua, and state of Iraq before this time period? All of those conflicts/problems happened under the administrations of other presidents. And just what do you think "Bush and oil-related interests" are going to do to Iraq that is worse than what Saddam Hussein has done? We aren't going to "steal" their oil. If that was all we wanted, there would be no conflict because there would have been no sanctions. Hussein would have loved to be able to sell his oil at top dollar on the open market.

Vague, unspecified fears are no argument against war; they're an excuse to bloviate.

To build an empire would completely violate America's self-image. We see ourselves as the anti-empire.

We do have interests around the world, business and otherwise, and we're willing to use force to protect them. I believe some are choosing to definte that as "empire".

Incorrectly, in my view.

Spot-On Brian. Iraq isn't the end of the road, it's just the next step. I just wish we'd move a little a faster -- we should already have finished off Iraq this summer and we should be preparing to overthrow the government of Iran already.

Wow, so much to respond to. First, Brian's post I think is spot on and I really don't have anything to add to that.

What I'll address is the understandable handwringing going on with regards to American hegomony (sp?)/empire.

First off, A_t's comments reak of the ignorant anti-American rants from so many of the protesters. Please, give me an example where the U.S. "runs" the world. The U.S. may have a disproportionate say in how countries conduct business between each other at the head of state level, but when it comes to the internal politics of other countries, the U.S. has very little influence, nor does it desire it. And it is the internal politics (free of American influence) that "run the world".

I mean, if we are running the world, then we are doing one piss poor job of it. Why the hell are we spending so much time sending Colin Powell to U.N. to get lectured by the Syrians, Chinese and Russians, not to mention mindnumbingly hypocritical "allies" like Germany and France. I mean, didn't they get the memo? THE U.S. RUNS THE WORLD.

But, I'll continue with a thread I had on Antoine Clark's posts last week. The U.S. is simply not constructed for empire. The system of checks and balances in this nation are enormous in their complexity and influence. Likewise, we are a REAL democracy. We have a REAL free and highly critical press (despite what Susan Surandon says).

The president can only do so much, militarily or diplomatically without having to get some sort of approval from Congress (let alone the courts). And the side of Congress that controls the purse strings is up for reelection every 2 years, plenty of time for public opinion to sway. For the U.S. to become a true empire like people think they are would require an amazing turn of events to take place legally, politically, intellectually and culturally. It's just not in the cards any time in the near future.

And as someone noted before, we had an absolute nuclear veto over the world for four years after WWII and didn't exercise it. And that was BEFORE a whole subculture of self-haters came in to being in this country via the radicalism of the 1960s. It's simply not what we do.

Michael Mealing properly maps out the strong isolationists strain in the U.S., with addison humorously adding to it.

BTW, Jim Bennett's latest anglosphere pretty well explains what would have to happen for the U.S. to turn into an empire:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030215-045050-2077r

And, if any of you buy into the idea that free speech is being silenced over here, please explain to me why so many of the "peace" rallies were so widely covered in the American media without once showing that actual real live communists took part and often organized the rallies? If the mainstream media isn't free, it's certainly not because it's a fan of Bush.

Right on both counts - that bin Laden forgot that when you strike at a king, you have to kill him. And that the long-term project appears to be the entire Middle East. It's going to be a long, large-scale draining of the swamp.

If it works it'll be good news for both the people there (who won't have their current worthless kleptocracies on top of them) and for the rest of the world. We'll have new markets to trade with, and a whole region can start to join in on the arts and sciences that they sadly make so little contribution to now.

I'm a chemist by trade (which furnishes much of the subject matter of my blog.) It's terrible to see what a scientific desert the Middle East is. You just have to look at the accomplishments of their people when they come to free societies to know that it doesn't have to be that way.

The problem with Russia and the Chechens is that Russia isnt harsh enough. The Chenchens are some of the most radical Islamists right now (Partly Russias fault but more because of where they are and conflicts they've had with other regional figures.) If think part of Russia's deal is they want us to allow them a free hand in Chechnya, and we should.

If Osama is alive and not in Pakistan, or Iraq, he's in Chechnya.

Brian, you are absolutely correct. To be even blunter:

You don't have much that we want. Certainly, you don't have anything that we want so much that we'll steal it. The things we do want, we'll buy. If you don't want to sell them to us, that's fine, we'll find them somewhere else. Foreign policy as free market.

American teenagers don't care where Iran is? NO American cares where Iran is. If we want to go there, we'll go to the airport and take out a gold card and say "we want to go to Iran." Like magic, 24 hours later we're in Iran.

Americans are like the childless couple that takes in troubled teenagers, cleans them up, gets them through school and sends them on their way. Empire? We don't want the kids underfoot forever! You have to feed them!!

US foreign affairs/policy is, for the most part, described by four rules.
(1) If you've got cool stuff, we'd like to buy it.
(2) If you've got money, we'd like to sell you our cool stuff.
(3) If you kill/threaten Americans or tolerate those who do, we will kill you.
(4) If you "need killing" or tolerate those who do, we might kill you.

Hussein/Iraq is covered by rule (4) (with a bit of "tolerate" wrt rule (3)). Pointing out that there are other targets for rule (4) doesn't get him off the hook, especially if the pointer doesn't want us to go after them either.[1]

If you don't like rule (4), there's an easy way to make it inapplicable - take care of folks who "need killing". We don't care how you do it, so feel free to demonstrate "superior methods". However, if you fail/don't bother, as is the case with Iraq, you don't have a legit beef.

[1] I'm pretty sure that the "what about North Korea" folks are opposing US action in Iraq because they want the US to use those forces in North Korea. That makes the WANK argument doubly irrelevant - whatever it is they want the US to do about North Korea is independent of any US action in Iraq.

You hit the nail on the head. Only Blair can judge if he should be more open or not, but as an American who doesn't always agree with Bush (e.g., I think Steel Tariffs were a huge mistake), I fully support my President's war on terrorism.

Let's liberate the Iraqis this year and help free others soon thereafter.

Although I am force to acknowledge the *rightness* of the sentiments expressed in the majority of these comments it is the overiding tone of the US position that gives me greatess sadness. It is exactly the insular approach alluded to by the majority of the posts that precipitates the decision to march against the US actions.
From my perspective as a supposed ally, part of the coalition of the willing, it is the actions of the US on high falutin' principles - such as the supposed Free Trade (screw your partners when the US domestic economy demands it) - that highlight the hypocrisy of the *public* statements around why Iraq must be invaded. On a *world policeman* front, am I to suppose that the murder of peaceful Tibetan monks should be ignored in a global community because it doesn't suit the US to get upset about it?
How come the US can remove democratically elected leaders in South America and replace them with murderious tyrants at will, but can't remove a regime such as Saddams's, responsible for gross crimes against humanity, through the same covert means?
I'm sorry, it's the hypocrisy I'm marching aginst.

As far as setting up shop right next door to the Arabs: It's worked out so well for Israel, hasn't it?

And as far as 9/11 being intended to bring us to our knees: That's not how I remember it. I thought OBL was hoping to create World War III between the Christian and Moslem worlds, to incite the U.S. to attack Arab countries so that they would finally rise up as one against the West. Looks like his game plan is working pretty well to me. We're following the script to the letter.

I concur, Brian.

I might add that American involvement in WWII and the subsequent Cold War took 50 years before victory. Skirmishes (i.e. North Korea) still raise their ugly heads from time-to-time. I expect the defeat of religious totalitarianism will take even longer.

As literacy rates in Iraq have plunged from >85% to

P.S. Many thanks for the Blog glossary on your site. I am new to this and it has been a great help. Blurker no more!

If this was going to be "war for oil", we'd get a better return on our investment by supporting efforts to remove Chavez from power in Venezuela. Go back and read what happened during the April coup attempt. And if we really wanted cheap oil, we'd encourage Ralph Klein and Albertan separatism, such as it is.

As for "Israel/Palestine can't be resoved as long as both sides continue to see benefit in fighting." Both sides? Israel has repeatedly made attempts to do everything but actually surrender. The only thing missing was the lack of an offer for the right of free passage for "martyrs" to continue their religious observeances. That you think they are as culpable shows how little you are paying attention, and how good some propaganda can be.

I think the basic analysis is correct. Taking Iraq is basically a strategic move. As it is the US has to dicker with Turkey and Qatar and other states which are used as staging grounds for military action. As the Gulf War showed, even with cooperative states it took months to transport and deploy the forces. Once Iraq is conquered the US will have a base in the center of the middle east from which they can project massive force in hours rather than months. I seriously doubt that any regime in the area which is "requested" to turn over terrorists residing or operating in their jurisdictions would refuse. The consequences of refusal would simply be too high and potentially immediate.

Angela, you said:

"It is exactly the insular approach alluded to by the majority of the posts that precipitates the decision to march against the US actions"

Most of the posts here have been talking about the U.S.'s "live and let live, and hey can I buy some of that" attitude. This is a libertarian site you are posting on. I'd hope you could appreciate that.

And please, can we just get off of Chile? It happened 30 years ago. The world order was WAY different then. And Hitler was elected and we removed him didn't we? Mugabe and Hugo Chavez are elected. If the CIA take them out, then you may have a point. Assuming of course, they are replaced with a dictator. But, given the RECENT track record, I don't think that is likely.

As for hypocrisy, we are in a real world, and there's bound to be some level of hypocrisy. Yes, Bush's steel tariffs decision was bad. All politicians do calculating things. It's the level of calculation and critical analysis by the media that keeps that stuff in check. Bush also proposed the most ambitious free trade agenda I've ever heard from any Western president a few months after the steel tariff's decision. Should the steel tariff decision completely remove the validity of any free trade proposals he makes in the future? No. Look at the aggregate decisions and then make your analysis.

But, if you are marching against hypocrisy, their are far FAR more examples of outright hypocrisy in the anti-war and anti-U.S. movement. Did you march against France's involvement in the Ivory Coast? What about Russia's in Chechnya? Or China's continual saber-rattling around Taiwan? What about France's oil contracts in Iraq? Marched against those lately? Just curious.

And believe me, the U.S. doesn't want to be the world's policeman. I think that's been established on this thread. But, if we see a viable threat against our citizens, then policing we will go. I sympathize with Tibet, but it is simply isn't anything we can get involved in outside of the rhetorical. And I hope you can see that the world is a complex place. Not every situation has to be handled the same way, simply for the sake of consistency. Brian's entire point is that Iraq is next because it is the best option for achieving real change. But that doesn't mean we'll invade North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia. They each require different approaches. That's life in the real world.

I'm sure you don't treat every person you know the exact same. Certain personalities require different approaches.

> Also, do you think other democracies should be given some say in what goes on, or should US just rule the roost?

The question is based on a false premise. The US is not interested in "ruling the roost".

However, we can discuss whether "the other democracies" should have any say wrt Iraq or US actions in general.

The short answer WRT Iraq is "no". "The other democracies" had 12 years, and failed.

Also, they've chosen to spend their resources elsewhere, so why should they have any say over how the US uses its resources?

There are plenty of opportunities for "the other democracies" to do their thing without US interference/control/say. When they succeed, great. However, ....

I'm not an American, but I AM passionately pro-US.Seems to me that the biggest threat to the safety of Western values is, paradoxically, an element of U.S. politics illustrated perfectly by Carter and Clinton. ie the Democrats. Their weak-kneed response to attacks on America and to anti-Americanism allowed terrorism to flourish during their terms in office. Not so much because of their personal failings, but because they were hostage to the whole academic/pc/lefty drivel that sometimes passes for serious debate among the Left.
If the U.S. is to prevail and preserve the values that made it great, then Americans had better get used to voting Republican for the forseeable future.

I see. Will pressure be brought to bear on the Turks to stop terrorizing the Kurds, on the Russians to stop terrorizing the Chechians, on the Israelis/Palestinians to stop terrorizing each other, etc?

"Will?" It already has been. Those are all difficult areas to deal with, though. World opinion favors the Palestinians, who are doing the majority of the terrorizing in that conflict, so a resolution isn't likely soon. Chechnya seems determined to align itself with al Qaeda and its sympathizers, so helping them isn't likely to be a priority. And we need Turkey as an ally against an even worse oppressor of Kurds.

Among other things, Angela_T says:

"On a *world policeman* front, am I to suppose that the murder of peaceful Tibetan monks should be ignored in a global community because it doesn't suit the US to get upset about it?"

This has nothing to do with what "suits" the US but with what is feasible. Even if US armed forces were twice as big as they are now, it would not be possible to liberate Tibet, either directly or by overthrowing the current government of China. The Chinese army and nation are too numerous, the land areas much too large, Tibet is too far away, too high, too rugged (to put it mildly), too roadless, and so on. It simply cannot be done, so there's no point in complaining that it is not being done. On Tibet, we can only hope to influence China by peaceful means. (Protecting Taiwan is a different matter: the US Navy is large enough, and Taiwan's own military strong enough, that that can and should be done. Having a wide strait in between helps, too.)

Similarly, the US could liberate Grenada by force, and could liberate Cuba at great cost, but Estonia and Poland and Czechoslovakia and a bunch of other places had to wait for the Soviet Union to collapse from internal decay. They were all too far from the US and too close to the USSR for any military measures to have worked at all. What would be the point of wasting lives on a useless gesture?

So why is no one (except Cuban immigrants) complaing that we haven't liberated Cuba yet?

> On a *world policeman* front, am I to suppose that the murder of peaceful Tibetan monks should be ignored in a global community because it doesn't suit the US to get upset about it?

(1) The US isn't, and isn't interested in being, the "world policeman".
(2) Go for it, solve the Tibet problem. The US won't stop you.

Or, is the real problem that the US is not interested in doing what you want? Tough.

If you're the EU, you're learning one of the consequences of choosing extra butter over guns. If you don't like those consequences, make a different decision.

BTW - One might argue that the Tibet problem is 2-3x as serious as Iraq. Consider, however, whether the EU's reaction to the US solution to Iraq is going to make the US more, or less, likely to provide muscle to back up a Tibet solution. (The EU is capable of implementing any non-muscle solutions, so if there's still a problem, either non-force doesn't work OR the EU is failing.)

This debate reminds me of the Council of Elrond, particularly Boromir of Gondor's suggestion that somebody take the One Ring and use it against Sauron.

I don't believe Boromir's reasoning can be dismissed lightly. Perry's argument for the use of the U.S. military in Iraq is similar: we have this incredible power right here just sitting around, we've paid for most of it already, why not use it for something constructive? Since the people of Iraq need to be liberated badly, why not pick up this big hammer and smash their cages?

I would love to see this work. I particularly look forward to seeing the U.S. Marines redeem themselves, becoming true Liberator Paladins by freeing the innocent and vanquishing the hated tyrant.

Yet I recognize that this incredible military power is extremely dangerous. Were it to fall into the wrong hands, there would be no force on Earth strong enough to resist it.

Three things stand in the way of this power being abused: the wisdom and honesty of the U.S. leadership, the ability of informed Americans to judge and replace that leadership, and the willingness of the military itself to defy illegal and manifestly immoral orders.

If I was fairly confident that the above restraints were strong and functional, I would go along with this war and the resulting further expansion of U.S. power. Alas, the more I dig, the less I trust that the USG is honest and wise. As a result of dishonesty and disinformation, I don't believe the U.S. public is properly informed about the ability of the USG to deliver on its promises. Worst of all, in the past, elements of the U.S. military have demonstrated the ability to engage in Ye Liveliest Awfulness when ordered to. The fact that these acts are widely underreported and misrepresented isn't encouraging either.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

Vote in my tiny LoTR poll:

The One Ring was evil because of its maker: 1
The One Ring was evil because of its power: 0

I hate to say it, but I've been saying most of this for over a year.

The various Middle Eastern regimes--especially Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and some others, are playing both sides of the fence on terrorism.

The way to frighten them is to take out a regime in the middle of their territory, and to have an established presence there.

In the process we will liberate people from a horrid dictator, and make the world safer.

They cannot say all this. But it's what they have in mind. It's unlikely they'll have to invade Iran, Syria, or Saudia Arabia. Just taking out Iraq will prove we are a force to be reckoned with, and make it easier to lean on them, diplomatically and otherwise.

Small but important correction: Lord Acton said not "power corrupts" but "power tends to corrupt".

All power is abused depending on the observer. That is not the issue. Neither is the accusation of "Empire" a now completely out moded term. Who needs the raw materials of weaker nations any more? Nobody needs Africa, Asia, Pukeistan, France, or MamboAmerica.

What is the same is the way in which the wealthy nation states are home for the multi-national corporations. It is these multi-nationals that make their homes wherever they choose, who then seek out the lowest cost place on the planet in which to manufacture, create, and distribute their wares.

It is this type of activity that is being branded as "Imperialism" today. The old line Communists are still at it but they have redefined their dogma. No longer do they wait for the workers in capitalist societies to "throw off their chains". It has become clear that capitalism continues to make life better and better for workers in the established capitalist countries. They now blame American and other capitalist "workers" along with the business "owners" for making the Third World workers poor. It is the capitalist workers themselves who are at fault which makes the killing of workers in America and Europe OK. The workers in capitalist countries are the problem.

This is the scenario. Unite the Third World in a war against the capitalist world including their workers. This is what is going on right now. The Communists are trying to make America the devil before going after Europe and parts of Asia. What America is doing now may end the latest Communist efforts IF Iraq is allowed to become an economic and politically free country.

The basis of the article is correct. Once Iraq falls the rest of the terror apparatus will fall too and once more the Communist efforts will go away....til the next time.

Quite right about the big picture, Brian.

There are two big ironies in your big picture. One is that the enabling technologies that buff up petty dictators come mostly from us. These enabling technologies are going to get faster, cheaper and better, thanks to us. The result, without a bit of government reform in areas with unearned high income and vile polities, is going to be faster, cheaper, more powerful dictators. It will conversely get harder, more expensive and more dangerous to stop them.

The other big irony is the the anti-imperialist ethos is what created this problem in the first place. The parade of Arab nationalists, using the worst of imported western ideas of nationalism, socialism, and anti-imperialism, took over the oil revenues with our acquiescence and put them into the hands of people who make the international oil companies look like Florence Nightingale.

Go for it - transform the oil-rich Islamofascist core, and use the recovered oil revenue to pay for the enterprise. The rest of the oil revenue can go into an escrow account, and used to reward good government, wherever it emerges.

And as for the rest us, we'll get back on the cheap flights to Paris and New York bistros and boulevards...or wherever.

Sir -

My compliments on an excellent analysis. If America wants to greatly reduce the odds our country is a terrorists' target, we must greatly reduce the number of would-be terrorists in the word.
To help achieve this result, We must also change the system that indoctrinates these potential terrorists.

It's politically incorrect, but the only way to achieve this goal is to change regimes, societies and mindsets that are conditioned to be anti-U.S., anti-democracy and anti-capitalism.

When authoritarian, Islamist countries finally embrace democracy and free markets, they will have no incentive or burning desire to "kill the oppressor" whom they blame for all of their personal and societal shortcomings.

The friendly reality of trade and (more) similar cultures go a long way toward precluding violent attacks.

America (with our great allies like the UK) defeated communism thanks to economic reasons and mass communication advancements. The "bad guys" finally realized how "bad" their system was. Today, former communist "enemies" are trading partners and no threat. The same thing will happen eventually with the Mideast Islamic backwards nut-cases. They will eventually surrender - many, no doubt fighting and screaming - to the modern marvels of progress and enlightenment.

It might take a decade, a century, a millenium, but it will happen.

And we need to get on with the process. Iraq, as you pointed out, is a great starting point. A beachhead if you will. When Iraq's condition improves, the people of other Mideast countries will quickly learn the same lesson Germany and Japan learned - i.e., "The Great Satan" and Bad Old USA wasn't so mean cruel afterall. As more nations clamor for economic progress, liberty and freedom, the number of angry young aspiring suicide bombers will shrink.

They will be too enthralled watching M-TV and playing with their home computers to build explosive devises, and they might just see that the "infidels" weren't so monstrous after all.

So the reasons to kill the bully Sadamm are - as you point out (and I concur) - multi-fold:

1. He's building weapons that can be used against us.
2. He's terrorizing and holding back his own people.
3. We CAN.
4. It will help counter the growth of the dangerous anti-West, Islamist brain-washing.
5. It will send a message to other would-be "evil-doers."
6. It will help civilize and modernize a backward people who once they leave their backward ways will be NICER to US and produce far fewer terrorists who want to kill us all.

'Tis a good move, all around, peace protesters be damned.

Interesting reference to the Lord of the Rings. As I recall, Tolkien wrote that if he'd intended the trilogy as some sort of commentary on the real world he would have had the good guys take the Ring and use it against Sauron, and be corrupted by it.

This analysis is wrong, wrong, wrong.

First: If hitting the WTC was supposed to make America mad, it did that. And yes, it should have gotten us to attack the terrorists who did it with all of our force. We did that, we went into Afghanistan, and we routed Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.

Now what? Not even the Bush Administration is claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Hussein didn't strike the WTC, Al Qaeda did. Not a single Iraqi was among the hijackers.

When was the last time we took out a secular Muslim leader? Anybody remember Mossadeq? Read about it here in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Mossadeq was a democratically elected socialist. The CIA, prodded by Britain, decided to orchestrate a coup against him. Mossadeq was replaced by the Shah, who ruled with an iron fist.

What was the eventual result of that? Anybody remember?

Can anybody spell B-L-O-W-B-A-C-K?

The analysis is correct that Saddam is weak. And that's pretty much why we're going in there --- not because Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. As a result, we're draining resources from other priorities, like domestic security (many reservists come from police and fire departments, as the LA Times reported yesterday: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-reserves17feb17004434,1,3196362.story ), the FBI funding is getting cut, partly due to budget constraints imposed upon us by Bush's tax cuts and the exorbitant cost of the war and occupation of Iraq.

In fact, it's exactly the opposite: the cost of going into Iraq will be very high, politically, militarily, monetarily, and the benefits will be comparatively small. Iraq is a weak target, but it isn't a central one. Just because we can stomp on a weak enemy doesn't mean we should, because there is a little thing called, let me spell it again:

B-L-O-W-B-A-C-K.

The reason that Blair is in a pickle is because this whole Iraq biz has been allowed to go on for so long. It should have been finished last March. With that success, there would have been only mild objection with continuing the process of liberting the arab world.

Angela - it sounds like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in your eyes. You acknowledge the "rightness" of the point that the US doesn't want to take over the world (a by-product of its insular attitudes) but then say that you marched against the US because of our "insular" attitude.

Well, which is it? Should we turn from our "insular" path and walk the road of empire? Will you march *for* the US once we begin forceably annexing weaker states?

After a few gratuitous slams you seem to be claiming that, unless we right every wrong in the world regardless of the cost or threat to the US, then we haven't the moral standing to free anyone. Do you really believe that liberation and disarming of Iraq is "hypocritical" unless we also attack nuclear-armed China over Tibet?

If you want to know why the US "street" holds the anti-war protestors in such dismally low regard, you need only re-read your post. In a few paragraphs, you wander all over the map of supposed American malfeasance and make no coherent point.

Since we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, we'll just do whatever we damned well please.

"Since we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, we'll just do whatever we damned well please."

There. I just wanted to see that in print again.

"I hope Americans realise what a public pickle Blair is getting himself into over this."

I will say this. I am glad to discover that I was misjdging Tony Blair during the Clinton years, by assuming that the media spin about their relationship was an accurate portrayal of that relationship. Especially since 9/11 we in America have seen that Mr. Blair remains, as Britain remains, America's staunchest ally.

That he is risking his political demise holding to that alliance proves that Blair is not the Brit Clinton he was made out to be. We hope he won't pay that price, but either way his willingness to risk it will certainly not be forgotten.

I think that Brian has a good insight here.

The skeptical contributors mostly come back to what amounts to a criticism/warning against American hubris. It's a good word of warning, but at the end of the day what do you do?

Saddam is a thug. At best he's a gangster who will extort wealth and exercise arbitrary justice. The USA is the global policeman. This cop's home and and car are really nice, but do you become an accomplice to the obvious crimes of the gangster because you SUSPECT the policeman may be on the take even as he hauls off the riff-raff?

Mitsu, interesting that you use an example dating back to the 50s. Come on, use the Chile example, its still dated but at least a bit more recent. I believe the recent knee-jerk examples of blowback are "US supported Saddam" and "Bin Laden worked for the CIA". Time to update your cheatsheet.

Fact is Bin Laden didn't attack the US to piss Americans off, and he didn't attack the US to start a Holy War between Crusaders and Islam (he made that excuse later). He attacked the US because he thought we were weak and might pull out of Saudi Arabia if bloodied enough. He watched us pull out of Lebanon after the Marines were killed, pull out of Somalia after the battle of Mogadishu. When we didn't pull out we responded pathetically. Our responses to the attack on the Khybar towers was tepid, on the attack on Bush senior was pitiful, and for the attack on the embassies in Africa was legal in nature. He saw no downside (like Tojo before him) so he attacked and woke the sleeping giant.

A very good and comprehensive analysis, in Brian's article *and* in the comments. Best I've read anywhere. The blogosphere beats easily Big Media. Congratulations to Samizdata.

To the subject of Iraq. Naturally I agree with all that was said, but a word of caution is in order:
beware of the "fatal conceit", beware of hubris. Social engineering is not possible, changing the mentality, behaviour, culture and regimes of a great part of the world - is a colosal task. Installing freedom, democracy, prosperity and peacefullness in the Middle East - let's face it - it will not happen in the near future - it is an historic process that we cannot control. Many dangers loom - the biggest beeing that America gets tired of the costs, gets new leadership (Carter like) and abandons the project too soon, true to it's very strong isolationist good instincts, amply proven in the past.
The biggest danger isn't too much empire but too little.

But let's not aim for the moon or dream too much. Going in and taking out Saddam is a worthy goal, whatever happens next, so let's do it. We can contribute to progress at least in the initial stage of constructive destruction. Big risks loom, but inaction is riskier.

Mitsu,

9/11/2001 was blowback.

Eliminating Iraq and every other terrorist supporting regime on the face of the planet is _PAYBACK._

Don't confuse the two.

There is much wisdom to be found above on this site. Many truths are voiced and skillfully defended and any additions now need to be more than reiterations of what has been already said. I do however believe that many of the viewpoints given here have stressed inadequately the very special reality that most of our known world's oil comes from a small area of the middle east. That oil resource is not a simple convenience nor an alternate energy supply, it is instead the very basis for our civilization without which the people of our world today could not survive and prosper. It is a resource for which there is no known good substitute from a energy or petrochemical standpoint.
In a sense, the oil under the ground in those vast desert areas of Asia Minor should belong to all of mankind. When it was discovered there by the men of the West, they presumed the oil they found beneath the sand to be the property of a few goatherders camping out nearby in a tent. However, as the land beneath was not owned by anyone, then what was brought up from the wells truly belonged to no one. It was a mistake that the finders of the oil then enriched the ragged natives who in a hundred years came to live in marble palaces, wear robes of gold, and attempt the destruction of the West.
Today, we should have no reluctance to correct the mistakes of the past. Perhaps it is no accident that we are now being led in that effort by an oilman.

Mitsu,
You have it backwards. Iraq is literally a central target. It is in the central position of a ring of terror enabling states, Iran, Syria, and the Saudi Entity Once an American army is there, we can bring pressure to bear on those states to cease their support of terror groups. These pressures can be economic, military, covert, propaganda, and most of all, the example to their peoples of installing a consensual government in Iraq. The other Arab countries and Iran are in a panic over that prospect. that is the main reason they are opposing our proposed attack. The "root causes" of terrorism lie in the dysfunctional character of Arab political culture. This must be reformed if we are to suppress the terrorist groups and terrorism.

We cannot win against terrorists by adopting a defensive strategy. They can always hit us if we leave them the initiative. It is much harder for them to operate if they do not have the support of state actors, and will be impossible if those states are supplying intelligence to us and cooperating in putting down those terrorist groups. Taking down Saddam and his murderous Ba'athist regime will contribute mightily towards this goal.

Oh yes, as a byproduct the Iraqis will be liberated. Anybody got a problem with that?

Brian, very good post. I have to say though, that this has been plain for well over a year. Glad to see you bring it out in the open. Not that I expect anyone hostile to it to be convinced by such logic that the Iraq operation is a good idea.

Mitsu and fellow travellers:

The question is, blowback from what cause? The big blowback from the Middle East originates with irrational, power mad polities financed by unearned oil revenue. The irrational policy of letting trillions in unearned wealth fall into the hands of irrationalists is the root of the blowback. Irrationalism without an external source of income is simply impotent. Appeasing them by leaving them to it will only encourage them. All irrationalists by nature hate the rational even as they must exploit it by force or fraud in order to live, and are encouraged by all signs of irresolution on the part of the reasonable. If oil revenue remains in the hands of these polities, then ultimately they will buy the weapons to destroy us. No amount of isolationism will help, as long as we have something left to steal, or someone left to enslave.

Those of you who speak of empire don't understand. The US does not want to be an empire in the classic, historical sense. Rather, I think Americans are quite content to show, sometimes forcefully admittedly, the fruits of democracy and economic liberalization to other countries and let them run with it, sometimes well and sometimes not. Examples: Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, El Salvador and Guatamala (not doing well but at least now democratic in spirit if not effect). The Arab world respects force and power. Believe me, if you want peace in Palestine, support the upcoming invasion of Iraq. If you want democracy in Saudi Arabia and Iran, support George Bush. After Iraq, Iran will be the next to fall, not as a result of an American invasion but as the result of a populace emboldened by the liberation of its neighbor. After that, next stop the desert hillbillies of Saudi Arabia.

>PAYBACK

Er, since when is it "payback" to retaliate against a nation that had nothing to do with the original offense? Let's see now, John hits me, so I decide to kill Larry, because I've never liked Larry. It's not irrational, it's PAYBACK.

>knee-jerk examples of blowback

Glad to see you know at least a little bit of history. Too bad you haven't learned anything from it. To say "oh, I've heard that one before" is not a refutation of an argument. You have to actually make a counter-argument to do that. Hint: rolling your eyes doesn't qualify.

I supported Gulf War I, in fact I thought we should have taken Saddam out then. I supported our operation in Somalia, and I thought it was absurd that we pulled out when we did. I supported going in and helping in Bosnia, and I supported the Kosovo air campaign. I supported the liberation of Afghanistan.

Why were those conflicts different? Because in every one of those cases we were going in with the full support of the international community. This is a critical point.

The Gulf War set a very good precedent: that in the face of threats from petty tyrants the world would act in concert. This was impossible during the Cold War, because the Soviet Union and the United States vetoed each other's resolutions (except for the Korean War when the USSR boycotted the session --- a mistake they never made again). Suddenly, with the end of the Cold War, a New World Order really was possible --- and I'm not one of those people who believes that Bush Sr. was trying to establish some evil empire then ---- the phrase was poorly chosen, but basically it simply meant that the world, acting in unison, could deter future aggression.

Part of what Bush Sr. did right in that war was truly to exhaust diplomatic initiatives first. He spent many months trying to negotiate with Saddam Hussein, to no avail.

In this case, we haven't exhausted the diplomatic channels first. The inspectors have only been there three months. We've given them secret intelligence which they've pounced on -- nothing was there. Yes, I believe Saddam is hiding something, but I think if we're going to establish this brave new precedent of a preemptive war, we had better have better evidence than "we're just realllllly sure he's hiding something realllly baaaad."

Why don't we move our criminal justice system to the same standard? We'll just execute criminals just because prosecutors just have a feeling they're guilty. Wait a second --- we already do that. Never mind.

Furthermore, where's the threat? This guy is a secular leader. Osama bin Laden recently said that he was an apostate. Do you know what that means to an Islamist? It means that he should be PUT TO DEATH. If I were going to give someone a bunch of nerve gas, I think I'd give it to someone who didn't want me to be put to death, thank you very much.

Furthermore, nerve gas and mustard has and anthrax, etc., are simply not effective military weapons. As the New York Times pointed out yesterday, pound for pound, chemical weapons are about the same effectiveness as conventional explosives.

Where's the urgent need to rush in before we can even get the approval of our own allies?

About oil - another point is worth making:
Oil in itself has no value. Those shepherds in the desert have no use for oil. Oil is valuable because a civilization exists that is technologically and scientifically capable of making the most of oil and turning it into an engine of wealth creation. That the fabulous oil riches could be captured by some sheiks is a curious annomaly. It cannot last for ever.

Lots of people posting at once here. Several posts slipped in above.

>Blowback from what cause?

When we installed the Shah, we eventually earned such enmity in Iran that their mullahs used it to their advantage to establish a regime which is obviously quite hostile to our interests. The pattern is simple: when we impose something on somebody else, it gives them reason to want to fight back.

Saddam Hussein is a secular leader. He is not a suicide bomber. He doesn't believe in the virgins in the afterlife. He wants virgins now.

For this reason, he's much, much more containable than Al Qaeda. He can't directly attack us because he doesn't want to die. For this reason he is a marginal threat at best.

So, why do we need to buck world opinion and attack after the inspectors have only been there for three months? The cost of waiting is tiny, and the risk is small: Saddam will still be weak six months from now. He is deterrable. There is just no reason to go in as we are doing.

Meanwhile, we set a terrible precedent of preemptive war. Almost anyone can justify any random aggression with that doctrine. I believe such a precedent will destablize international relations for centuries to come. If we go in preemptively, shouldn't we have a hell of a case first? We have only suspicions and a few shreds of evidence.

Our real enemy is extremist Islamism, not the Baath Party. Yes, the Baath Party is bad, but they're not even remotely our worst problem right now. Going in unilaterally will cost a lot, and it will give extremist tons of ammunition for their "America is an imperialist power" rhetoric, and meanwhile we will have gained practically nothing in return.

it is a bad bargain.

Holy frigging carp. I am *not* reading all of that. Sorry, y'all, you will not get my immortal wisdom on this one.

Re: "running the world"...

Why would we need to "run the world" when it is so much easier (and profitable) to build a McDonalds here-n-there, offer their best-n-brightest scholarships to our universities, and negotiate to lower trade barriers wherever we can?

Britain and France "ran the world", and went bankrupt defending (and losing) their empires in WWII, altough the British surrendered theirs more gracefully (Kenya, Uganda, India) than the French (Indo-China, Algeria).

Self-interest and the hard-way lessons of others should teach us it's cheaper in the long run to trade with others from the products we need (yes, even oil from Araby) than it is to seize them by force (and thereafter be forced to defend them).

--a.t.

Andrew Thomas - Are you nuts? the British ran wild over Kenya in the 50's - murdering thousands - try googling 'Dedan Kimathi' - then they abandoned the Kenyans and Rhodesians in a way the French never did.

Wot Evil Shits.

> Meanwhile, we set a terrible precedent of preemptive war. Almost anyone can justify any random aggression with that doctrine.

In other words, someone in the future is going to say "It would be in our best interests to attack now, but the US didn't do it in 2003 so we're not going to do it now". (A US preemptive attack wouldn't be new, so it isn't a precedent.)

Sorry - I don't buy it. Countries have no memory and don't build up credit. They always act in their perceived best interests at the time. If a preemptive attack is in their best interest, they'll attack. If screwing the US is in their best interest, they'll screw.

As an example of the latter, note the recent behavior of France. If any country owed the US for past favors, it's France.

To share power you have to have power.

Europe brings less of that to the table every day.

Here is a clue: trouble in the Balkans? Call America.

Not even strong enough to police it's own back yard.

You want power sharing? Fine. Get some.

M. Simon

"Although I am force to acknowledge the *rightness* of the sentiments expressed in the majority of these comments it is the overiding tone of the US position that gives me greatess sadness. It is exactly the insular approach alluded to by the majority of the posts that precipitates the decision to march against the US actions."

Well, if the insular approach dominated, there wouldn't be much to march about...

"From my perspective as a supposed ally, part of the coalition of the willing, it is the actions of the US on high falutin' principles - such as the supposed Free Trade (screw your partners when the US domestic economy demands it)"

Well, not really - when pork to the steel industry demands it, more like... Also, this complaint would resonate a bit better with me if the supposed free-trade acolytes of the EU were true to their words themselves. They are not.

"- that highlight the hypocrisy of the *public* statements around why Iraq must be invaded."

Yea, they are probably somewhat hypocritical from a lot of perspectives. More hypocritical than run-of-the-mill diplospeak.

"On a *world policeman* front, am I to suppose that the murder of peaceful Tibetan monks should be ignored in a global community because it doesn't suit the US to get upset about it?"

Erm, no. But I wouldn't count on the US, or the EU for that matter, cutting trade or launching a war of liberation in Tibet, for rather obvious reasons, if that is what you desire.

"How come the US can remove democratically elected leaders in South America and replace them with murderious tyrants at will, but can't remove a regime such as Saddams's, responsible for gross crimes against humanity, through the same covert means?"

Covert ops are easier the more open the society - in open societies there are parallel power structures to work through, in a well-developed tyranny, the rulers have eliminated those avenues.
As for the south american institution / support for murderous tyrants, there really hasn't been much of that since the cold war ended.

"I'm sorry, it's the hypocrisy I'm marching aginst."

Two points:

1. It's not as bad as you make