It only took 58 years from the end of World War II and America's conscious decision not to remain isolationist for this country to turn into an agressive impirical power like the Romans or, yes, the Soviets. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those idiots who wants to make a moral equivalence argument between Bush and Stalin (like that guy on the Daily show who claimed that American talk radio has less diversity than talk radio in Stalinist Russia) or anything. Perhaps Bush and Julius Ceasar would be more appropriate? I think so, although it gives Baby Bush FAR too much credit as a military strategist. Anyway I'm aghast at how the Iraq situation has degenerated. Bush has always struck me as a crafty fellow and I figured all this war talk was just hard line diplomacy. It wasn't. Now I'm not sure if he's actually this stupid or just this heartless. It boggles the mind. My only last hope is that he knows something that we don't. Like he's made a secret deal with the Iraqi military so that it will surrender and just allow the American troops to march in, take out Saddam's loyal forces, and kick the dictator out of the country with minimal civillian casualties. Either that or there is reason to believe Saddam will actually leave.
How could Bush have done things better? Well if I were in his position I would try to test how far Saddam would let us get. I would send in an armed and VERY well protected force to try and trap one of those mobile chemical weapons factories, but with strict orders not to fire on other targets unless fired upon first. If Saddam would accept forcible disarmament without regime change then that's what we want. If he attacked our troops then it would be HE who was declaring war (although you could say taking potshots at our planes is pretty close to that). Either way it would at least be morally and ethically consistant.
I don't like the fact that we're invading a country for what it MIGHT do in the future. That after we dismantelled a regime for "harboring our enemies." These seem EXACTLY like the kinds of excuses a Stalin might make for taking over a lesser country, and then installing a puppet or satellite government. While I dont think we will be commiting stalinist attrocities or even putting our own governments in place, we will certainly be dictating a certain range of government (From liberal democracy to conservative democracy) and probably be demanding loyalty to the U.S. from whatever government is put in place.
I don't like what's going on one bit, and Bush is looking more and more like a crafty vicious SOB who engineered a war to help people forget about Enron and all the other scandals that plagued his administration at the begining and are probably still going on right now beneath our notice.
People mock the isolationism post WW I but I think it showed a lot of foresight. When you have this much power you NEED to bottle it up or it will flow out and flood the rest of the world, damaging it possibly beyond repair.
Offensive idea of the day:
In a recent New York Times editorial someone wrote in saying that the recent revelations of rape at the Air Force academy show that HOMOSEXUAL males are not the most disruptive force to service unity, rather it's the macho culture. Why are we blaming the macho culture and not the females? I don't mean that the females are responsible for being raped, that's obviously stupid, but rather that females in a macho culture can be extremely disruptive and it's the addition of a few females into a bastion of maleness that is causing these problems which probably can't be solved without turning the military into a bunch of simpering PC wimps. To me these rapes problematize the policy of shoehorning females into places where they don't fit and will never WANT let alone HAVE anything resembling equal representation rather than saying anything about the admitedly silly don't ask don't tell policy.