--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it matter why we do anything in an anarchic international system? We do what we want, when we want, how we want, because our menu of options affords us any choice we wish to pay for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only problem with that line of reasoning is that if we get to do "what we want, when we want, how we want," then anyone else can as well.
That is the world we have always lived in. Any country can do anything they wish to do, however, if they get their comeuppance at the hands of another nation, that too is a "legitimate" result.
If we get to take out Iraq because we think they'll be a threat in a few years, does that mean China gets to invade Taiwan because they have secret "intelligence" that proves that Taiwan was about to buy fissionable materials suitable for use in nuclear weapons? How about secret proof that Japan is secretly working on a germ warfare program to sterilize chinamen so their next expansion attempt into China is more successful than their last? Does it matter that we're creating a double standard, as long as we assume the balance of power in the world will always remain as it is now? Might this come back to bite us in the butt a little bit later?
Perhaps the "might makes right" model will haunt us in the
distant future. Somehow I doubt it as we will always remain a suspected nuclear power even if we foolishly "disarmed" ourselves on the altar of international comity. China can invade Taiwan--if they want to tangle with Taiwan's friends. . . .
SNIP
If we'd looked for a legitimate justification for our invasion, we could have looked to those seen as disinterested and non-biased (like the UN inspection teams), and maybe helped them along a little. At that point we could have at least stood up and said "he's in violation of our cease-fire agreement, so the cease-fire is off and we're gonna fix everything." But now we're stuck with being the schoolyard bully saying "yeah, what are you gonna do about it?"
Non-biased UN inspection teams? Surely you jest. Hans Blix was a EU flunky. I did enjoy his seemingly endless mission to keep his budget and tip off the Iraqis as to every move he was going to make. Nothing quite like playing three card monty for a living when someone else is footing the bill. I will repeat it until you read it--when Saddam kicked the inspectors to the curb in 1998 he was in material breech of the '91 cease fire, nothing more was required to reinstitute hostilities. The Administration's biggest mistake was in feeling the need to strengthen the "justification" to knock off a recalitrant loser who failed to live up to the terms of the cease fire agreement which bound him. Would World War 2 have been fought if France and Britain had the will to just go in and smash Hitler's fairly obvious rearmament early on when they still held the upper hand? This is pointedly not an attempt to compare Saddam to Hitler, only to highlight the principle that no matter the size of the security problem, confronting evil in its infancy is easier than ignoring it while it grows. That our "friends" were actively nursing Saddam along in his recovery speaks volumes about their motivations.
How does that help us in the long run?
You have yet to demonstrate how it hurts us. Last I checked France still wants our tourists' dollars.
