You pose an interesting question:That begs the issue, I agree, of whether of not the US should do these things alone and I agree again that this is a tough question.
To me, the bigger question is which bad guys to go after. We can't and won't go after them all (a partisan fantasy that realists have to reject), so we have to have some rationale for allocating our economic, military and political resources for foreign interventions.
Saddam was a bad guy - so are many current and recent dictators in Africa who caused many more to die in their own countries and in other countries. In the ME, the country with proven WMDs, horrible attacks against its own people and proven support for terrorism was Syria, not Iraq.
The issue of whether Saddam should have been attacked gets obscured by the "was he a bad guy" debate when the questions is, was he the bad guy we should have expended so much capital to remove?
I know we disagree on that. A compelling case could be made in several directions. But that is a huge part of the rationale behind criticizing the Iraq venture - it was the wrong war, not that war is wrong.
JMHO as always.
FWIW, the 3-president system you have in mind is roughly what the UK does with the Queen-PM-Foreign and Defense ministers, or France with the President-PM-Ministers structure.
My deepest regret is that our best potential leaders don't run for higher office much at all nowadays. |
