As for me personally, I think that Iraq is a beachhead to make America a powerful force in the Middle East, . . .
Yes, to type seriously for a moment, since I've not been terribly serious here recently, I consider that as our biggest point of disagreement. I can see, as Stanley Hoffman put in the piece someone posted here, the US as a global leader, even a hegemon, in which the exercise of power is wrapped in international institutions observing some forms of international laws, cooperating to support those institutions. I don't necessarily mean only the UN. I doubt it could carry that burden. I've seen arguments these could be more regionally based and then expand, sort of NATO-east kind of arguments. That makes some sense.
I take it, however, that you are comfortable with the arguments that the US must use force, go it alone, and establish a kind of global empire. If so, then it's good to see just where our point of disagreement actually is.
Hoffman has some sentences in the last paragraph of that piece which encapsulate this distinction. I'm too lazy to dig up the piece right now but that's what I have in mind. |
