St_Cyrill_of_Tyrrenhaes said:Francis Fukuyama, doyen of the neoconservative movement, predicted as much a couple of days ago. His piece is a stunning kick in the backside for the neocons in the present government and is well worth a read.
Thanks for that link. I enjoyed the article. It made some very good points.
However, I do feel it was based on the premise that the motives behind US world policing are genuine. And it seems to suggest that America does indeed enjoy a moral high ground that I would strongly argue against based on their own society, nevermind their foreign policy.
It is a scrambling for resources. All of the major economic powers in the world are already fighting a cold war based on trade to try and get the last remaining resources in the world. In my opinion, this is seen as more important by the US than any WMD 'threat'. I think this is evidenced in the fact that they put forward the idea that Saddam and Iraq posed a greater threat to the US than, say, North Korea who actually have nukes along with missiles capable of reaching as far East as Chicago if they contain only a half-payload. Why did they not go into North Korea first? Did North Korea not present more of a clear and present danger?
They wanted Iraqi resources and so they went in. I don't doubt that they do want to implement democracy around the world too, but Iraq was about resources, not WMD or democracy. If those were the most important reasons, they would have gone into North Korea first. But they are happy to settle the North Korean issue by diplomacy.
The difference in Iraq is that they had already created their evil figurehead in Saddam for the people to concentrate on, due to the earlier gulf war which involved the US 'freeing the Kuwaitis from an Iraqi invasion'. But why did Saddam invade Kuwait? As an evil despot hell bent on controlling the world and it's oil? Or did the fact that Kuwait at the time was in fact stealing Iraqi oil from under their soveriegn ground. Bush I had done the groundwork in creating popular opinion against Saddam. Saddam is no angel, I know. But all we ask is that these things are done for the right reason, and that the full truth of what is going on is made obvious.
Back to the article, it rightly states something I have been saying along, that democracy has to come from within, you cannot force it on the people - you have to create a movement of the people. Indeed the article references the Orange Revolution and other such so-far successful transitions.