My feeling is that nature abhors a vacuum. Yes, the strongman approach (or "he may be a sonuvabitch but he's our sonuvabitch" strategy) has overall served us well, though the voices of those who suffered from it have gotten louder and harder to ignore.

I'd hoped that the EU could fathom the need to have an access program for infant aspiring democracies on its periphery, but if the slow inaction of Egypt didn't dissuade me, its cooperation in dismembering Libya did. Not as a mulligan for failed democracy and support for protesters, but for a craven grasp for oil reserves and an end-around from Qaddafi's bank.

Sadly, the US doesn't seem to be worried about burnishing its image abroad anymore, thinking that the tough uncaring man (too many Marlboro commercials?) is preferred to Rosinenbombers. Who will fill our moral vacuum along with the Mideast power vacuum? Sadly, I haven't a clue.

Actually Putin actively backed us in getting the Northern Alliance moving in Afghanistan (I heard they carried in suitcases of cash on camel/horseback, but maybe it was bank transfer)

Despite the differences between Libya and Iraq, the lack of consideration of what precedents and expectations overthrowing Qaddafi set is problematic. Syria and Iran certainly dial this into their negotiating strategy, and we don't know yet where instability in Libya will lead - that people's uprising in Benghazi didn't exactly take root as a democratic movement, and roving militias are hardly our ideal partner in democracy. building, as we've seen in other MIdeast countries as well.

Thanks for the link, though I disagree on a number of issues.

First, containment is not de facto "broken" - sure, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and we all wish for easy disarmament. But if containment fits US interests vs. the other realistic alternatives, ride it.

Some of the arguments against containment were that it was too costly or too much trouble, but that's obviously bullshit compared to the 1000x higher cost and troubles of Gulf War II & its aftermath. Containment worked great for the Cold War, all things considering - much better than the annihilation of WWII battles.

But I've explained myself to questioning Europeans that sometimes a policy like containment is no longer acceptable - that the risks of the status quo are too dangerous to sit around waiting guess-and-see - especially if the conditions and danger inside are unknown. Which is why I supported the pressure for inspections, even though I thought Bush a duplicitous asshole. With an event like 9/11 the situation and risk assessment had radically changed, and with too little concrete knowledge of the situation inside Iraq - largely a black hole - and a recent security disaster, the US had little tolerance for uncertainty. And with the continued deadlock and lack of improvement in the Mideast, sometimes like pool with no obvious shots, the only real option is to "break up the table" to come up with a better position.

Second, Blix and the UN inspectors were rather satisfied with progress by Jan 2003, and that progress continued into March. Again, the issue for us is "serving US interests", not "we told you to, and you didn't do it". Demanding disarmament and proof of no weapons is a huge operation, and proving a negative is rather difficult - proof? we couldn't prove it even after occupying the country. Our biggest concern was nuclear weapons, and we discovered Iraq definitively didn't have them. Unaccounted for chemical weapons were likely unusable & ineffective after that amount of time. Biological weapons were more controversial, but we still have no proof that any existed, and if they did, it was a small program. So why did we have to follow through with an invasion that didn't fit our strategic interests? Delays would have strengthened our hand, not weakened us. But for the unthinking, any stepdown would only be humiliation and defying of our authority - using a very unimaginative definition of "noncompliance".

Posted: February 15, 2003

UNITED NATIONS — U.N. inspectors have not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and are slowly gaining Baghdad's grudging cooperation, top weapons inspectors said yesterday in a measured report that derailed U.S. efforts to broaden support for war.

The inspectors also said they still could not account for 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, and an exasperated Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned members of the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein was playing "tricks" on them.

Powell may have accused Hussein of tricks, but it's been well documented that Powell and the CIA lied about Hussein's capabilities numerous times on a number of key points. You can read the background documentation here.

Blix was happy with UN progress as early as January, surprised that things were going that well. But progress wasn't good enough for a regime that was intent on using any discrepancy no matter how small, even if those discrepancies were based on lies and flawed analysis. As Ambassador Wilson noted, by March the inspectors were going wherever they needed without hindrance. But success wasn't part of the Bush gang's playbook - they wanted the t-shirt and the green light, even if they had to light it themselves.

Posted: March 08, 2003

UNITED NATIONS — The United States and Britain, undeterred by largely upbeat reports yesterday from U.N. weapons inspectors, asked the Security Council to impose a firm deadline on Iraq's Saddam Hussein, giving him 10 more days to fully disarm or face war.

Pulling defeat from victory - how quaint. We associate Stalingrad with Hitler's foolish refusal to retreat an inch in the face of disaster and crushing defeat. The Charge of the Light Brigade is a symbol of futile attack to preserve honor against debilitating odds. Perhaps we can figure out the exact metaphor for Gulf War II - say a foolish  grandstanding act pretending to serve our interests while instead subsuming those interests to a generation of chaos. Well done, George - you're now synonymous with "lying your way to war against your own best interests" - the gang that couldn't shoot straight, or perhaps just didn't want to.

What about the famed to-be-militarized State Dept, with own helicopters etc. (as seemed to be what Hillary was referring to as we pulled troops out of Iraq)? Do you think this may have been part of what occurred in Benghazi when rumored to be gun running for Syria, or only a CIA gig, or something else?

It's interesting that 2 of our Axis of Evil antichrists have had to become partial allies to tamp down local unrest. If we didn't live in such jaded times, the irony would be priceless.

Joe Liberman & John McCain were still joshing about Iran attacks long after 9/11, but maybe no one in the Administration does anymore - haven't paid that much attention.