These are all good (if slanted) observations. The one thing you don’t touch on, which does concern me, is the question of popular support for the American position. Based on our arguments and in light of recent polls there is no popular support even in Britain for an invasion of Iraq outside the auspices of the U.N… Indeed, it’s very likely that even ‘friendly’ governments and others who’ve been coerced (as, notably, we’re pretty generous with checkbook diplomacy these days - take a look at how much cash we’re providing Eastern Europe let alone Turkey) will be voted out of power as a result of supporting a war their own people have no desire for and, indeed, a great deal of hostility to.
I’ve never been convinced that the U.S. is the black hat here anymore than I’m convinced we’re the white hats eithers. Obviously, some action has to be taken to create a less poisonous environment in the Middle East. Some might say forcefully resolving the Israeli/Palestininan issue by applying real pressure on Israel to work and play well with others is the answer but domestic politics make that awkward. There are even some real nuts that think if we spent the cash we’re about to spend on this largely elective war, the related diplomacy/bribes, and the rebuilding of Iraq on actually developing an alternative energy source to gasoline we could wash our hands of the Middle East entirely. And, ultimately, it’s the oil and shady operations (installing the Shah, supporting the most radical elements in Afghanistan and letting it fall apart afterwards, supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, and so on…) that’s gotten us here. Will more oil and more shady operations with questionable partners bring better results?
I do understand that real action has to be taken and I think the protestors claiming that ‘peace’ is the answer probably have to work a little harder to come up with a solution. I’ve suggested the theory that we’re moving against Iraq in order to get ahold of the oil with the strategic goal of being able to control oil flow and prices - in order to pressure Saudi Arabia into backing off its support of Islamic radicalism (which is where many of our terrorists come from). While I’m skeptical that we’re going to really offer anything like democracy to Iraq, since what we want is a predictable environment not one driven by populist politics (folks will elect anyone - just look out our own White House), I do think we can’t afford to be at the mercy of OPEC and this will get us out of that trap. Taking Iraq also offers a central location to stage other elective military operations all over the region should we feel the need. As a wargamer, since I’m no policy analyst, this strikes me as a very prudent move.
I’m the guest, who forgot to log in, that posted before and pointed out just how badly we’re screwing up unless our goal is to alienate ourselves from the world. It’s pretty clear that, governments aside, no people - nobody - no population, is buying our arguments that this is simply about dictatorship and weapons of mass destruction. That’s because we haven’t made anything resembling a convincing case to anybody that we need to bring a war about to end this somewhat vague threat to folks in the region (who /really/ want us to stay the hell out) or ourselves (who are so freaked out since 9/11 42% of us still think Saddam was behind it and even if he wasn’t - well - let’s blow /something/ up!).
I forget who used the phrase ‘coy’ to describe the administration’s actual Middle East policy as compared to its stated Iraq policy but ‘coy’ only breeds suspicion. Baseline: nobody likes war. Baseline: We’re not France - we’re a very big dog. Big dogs on a leash are tolerable. Big dogs chasing cats around scare folks. Baseline: We do have to play by different rules if we want the world to tolerate us rather than fear us. Baseline: We have the resources and diplomatic skills (somewhere) to make things happen in a way that won’t piss everyone off. Baseline: We elected a saber-rattling big talking idiot and his radical buddies (read some of their papers sometime) with ties to oil and the industrial-defense complex.
So, even if action of some sort is justified (and I can see how a rational case can be made) we’re managing to make a mess of presenting it by virtue of not only the message but who the messengers are.