Ken,
Thanks for the further response.
Of course our troops are magnets. But putting them in harm's way in Iraq when the evidence was so flawed was a huge mistake. One that I hope and pray that we do not repeat regarding Iran.
So if there was acceptable evidence of WMD it would not have been a mistake? Given the broad acceptance of that as fact prior to the war by a wide range of folks on "both sides of the aisle" this argument seems a non-starter.
I think the comparison of the Bush administration with Wilsonianism is spot on. I don't see how one cannot see the connection in light of President Bush's second inaugural address.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. There was certainly none of the internationalism that so carried Wilson away.
I don't think that Mr. Fukuyama is blaming Bush for Ahmadinejad's electoral win or the overwhelming electoral victory by Hamas. However, it is true that pushing for democracy can produce results that are potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. That is not to say that we should not encourage democracy but we must be prepared to live with results that we do not forsee and do not like.
Looking back at Fukuyama's statement, you may be right about the first point.
Mr. Fukuyama is simply stating that we will eventually withdraw from Iraq(which we will - like it or not), and that when we do so we must give in to some isolationist tendencies in our nation and withdraw from interacting with the rest of the world.
I don't think the latter necessarily follows from the former, though it will certainly cause second thoughts, rightly or wrongly, about going to war when we feel our security is threatened. As to the latter, I think that as to "interaction", pulling out may necessitate such interaction, if for no other reason than to manage internal and international perceptions about the reason for the pullout and American strength.
President Bush had mentioned democratizing Iraq in the leadup to the war, but it was not emphasized like the "evidence" that Iraq had WMDs.
Democratization was not given as the justification under international law.
Even if we perceive that our use of military power is more "moral" than that of other countries it is foolish for us to expect other countries to regard it in that light.
Do you deny that our use of military power is more moral than that of China or Russia? Other countries are certainly judging our actions by their own views of morality. Why should we not do so? Are we to be guided by theirs or ours in determining what is the right thing to do? No, I'm not saying that is the only thing that gets factored into a calculation of action, but it must certainly be one of the factors.
North Korea is not a part of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us, North Korea has not. I use the North Korea question to point out the poor logic used by some people in being so concerned about a country such as Iran which doesn't have nuclear weapons(and which I don't believe are trying to develop them) while not talking about bombing or nuking or invading North Korea.
Ken, at what point do you look at your own information? You're the one who told us Iran has 300 underground sites. What in the world do you think they're doing with them? What in the world do you think China is sending them? Do you require a detailed explanation of the military threat that North Korea represents vs. that of Iran? You're comparing apples to oranges but still can't see the difference?
Germany and Japan had attacked the us. We conquered them and install democratic institutions so that they would not attack us, or other nations, again. Iraq had not attacked us. We did not need to invade Iraq. It was a preventive war of choice. And President Bush bears the responsibility for his choice.
As I said before, we attacked Iraq for reported military reasons, though. The point remains: we defeated them militarily and the proper thing to do was to not leave a political vacuum. Maybe I'm missing your point. What is it?
There will not be a world government. Rather we will see a proliferation of organizations such as NATO, OAS, etc., even NGOs, that will work together to solve various problems. The United Nations will not be the one stop place for international cooperation.
Of course I said nothing about world government. Who will oversee the agenda/actions of such organizations? And if that agenda runs counter to our own interests? What if such organizations are paralyzed as IAEA was with Iran, continually giving them "more time" and not going to the Security Council themselves. It is a pipedream to see such "international cooperation" as a panacea for rogue states threatening regional, international, or our own security. Such organizations tend to be paralyzed with the European sickness. We have often done poorly ourselves as with Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea; we shouldn't have our own actions controlled or threats to our own/alliles' security ignored by do-gooders thinking that tigers change their stripes--even as such tigers sharpen their claws.
