Glorified Ape, I've read your reply and I could attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm not going to - all it will do is extend the exasperating tit-for-tat spiel that has been running on this forum for years now. Rather, I'm going to offer an observation and a bit of a challenge.
As I read your post, I pick up a tone of argument through your use of terms like "sociopathic" and "sustaining hegemonic status" that seems to indicate that you believe that the US is making a desperate bid to shore up its status as Global Superpower. As well, you constantly appeal to notions of "consensus" and "global governance" which, although sounding nice and fluffy, have never been a serious factor in the conduct of nations since the Peace of Westphalia (even the Concert of Europe was fraught with intrigue, interest, and revolution). heck, none of the Allies could even gather a consensus on how to defeat Fascism in WWII and what to do when that was done - I could see the an internet thread in 1945 debating Churchill's staunch realism vs. Roosevelt's hopeful idealism (which was manipulated by Stalin's totalitarian paranoia).
I will assert that Iraq must be viewed agianst the general backdrop of US involvement in the Middle East. It, like the "War on Terror", must be viewed as a whole. I do not believe Iraq is merely an independant effort by the United States to grab power and prop up its Hegemonic status; this status was assured when the Taman Guards chose to not crush the Muscovites marching in the streets and I contend that American strength, regardless of Iraq, will be unrivaled for at least the next few decades - the preponderance in all facets of strength (military, economic, cultural, digital) point to this.
Ratherl, I believe America (along with its Allies) have gone into Iraq to decisively engaging themselves in the Middle East for the same reason they decisively engaged themselves in Europe following WWII - it was in their interest (and the interest of other liberal democracies) to curb the rise of ideological terrorism, only now Bolshevism has been replaced with xenophobic Fundamentalism which, since the withdrawl of the Soviets from the Middle East, is feeding off of people who live in squalor and destitution under tin-pot regimes. Iraq, like Guadalcanal or North Africa, is merely one set of battles in a grand campaign to deal with a world-view that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles that we have thrived under.
To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, "States don't have friends, they have interests". Canada should not occupy itself with seeking "friends" through its "reputation"; this will only serve to have our "Soft Power" crumble when others choose to serve their interest over "friendship" with us. I believe it is in our interest to strategically commit ourselves to the Middle East - not through back room deals and political back-scratching as the French, Russians, and Chinese have been prone to do, but rather along with the Americans and British to effect decisive change in behaviours and attitudes. Whether this means mere political support or a small troop commitment is not important, only that we recognize that we must exercise our influence at the center of Dar-al-Islam lest Western influence in the area takes a dramatic turn for the worse and we risk being held for ransom by politically hostile actors.
Here is my outlook on the American effort in Iraq that I have pasted from another forum. Read it if you want. Hopefully, it may provide a different approach to interpreting events in the Middle East. If you still wish to argue rabid and sociopathic imperialism, then go for it - but the disjointed arguments for this approach (oil, Bush, racism, failing economy) don't seem to add up.
) to change attitudes in this nation.
