the need to develop a new global “rule set”, to use the Barnett expression, capable of confronting the linked problems of dictatorships, failed states, and terrorism. We backed away from that challenge – which would, like most important tasks, have been difficult – and based our moves on short term domestic political considerations.
I'm not at all sure what a new 'rule set' means in practice. It seems to me that the state-sponsors of terrorism are still the largest 'hanging fruit' under any rule set, since they provide what non-state actors cannot make for themselves - safe havens.
And frankly, I find the idea that Bush attacked Iraq for short-term political gain absurd. What did he gain from it? Was 80% of the country demanding a war? Was it an easy use of his political capital? Has the past year been easy for him politically? No to all these questions.
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that Bush and Blair believed, based on their best intelligence, that Saddam planned to attack the US via terrorist agents and was developing WMDs which he might give to them, and that containment was failing? (an assemssement that nobody disputed, before the war, btw) I'll go read your article; anybody who argues that containment was a success in light of what we now know about the Oil for Food scam has quite a row to hoe. |
