"The next question borders on heresy: In a world, where an individual or a group or an outlaw country could, at least theoretically, have the potential of destroying entire countries and continents – can we still afford to stick to the principal of non-interference with the internal affairs of others?"
Skin,
This war may make future non-interference possible. Without this war we may have multiple pre-emptions later on. Now only the North Koreans were able to get some advantage out of iraq. Perhaps without this war, the next time we want to stop a saddam invasion of kuwait for example, these dictators will work together to make that impossible. Then perhaps you will have NK, Iran, Syria, Mugabe, some other STAN, and perhaps a South American entry in the mix.
With this intervention, though the rules technically change, the opportunity for folks to cause trouble in the future actually diminishes. Does this make any sense? mike |
