First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down. Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct. The same problem the soviets had in Afghanistan. So I disagree with you that we do not have the power to smite a wayward nation-state should we feel it is appropriate. I agree that a broad base of international support for any action is better, but I don't agree that a broad base is necessary.
Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.
Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.
I am siding with the idea that we stay out of another country's affairs until they pose a threat to "our" security interests. At that point, once we determine that Diplomatic, Informational, or Economic actions will not be sufficient to reduce the threat, we take limited military action to REDUCE the threat. That does not mean that you embrace "regime change" which was a euphemism for "replacing a dictatorship with a democracy". Depending on the culture of the country you are intervening in, that can be an intergenerational commitment that is primarily a Informational and Economic effort with the military playing only a very minimal roll. The decision to involve ourselves in that kind of action must take into account the society that we are attempting to re-engineer.
From a policy prospective, we need to decide whether sovereignty or human rights are more important. Is a stable government more beneficial to us than one that is democratic. If your choice is democracy, then you better be prepared for that type of commitment. I would submit that, as far as use of the Military form of national power is concerned, our choice should be sovereignty. This is what we did in Desert Storm. We made no attempt to replace the Emir of Kuwait with a democracy. What they had worked for them even though their women did not have the right to vote.
Realize also that, no matter which one of these choices we make, someone will be able to argue that you were wrong. If you try to install a democracy and an insurgency results, you were wrong. If you leave a dictator in charge, you were wrong.
This also does not mean that we abandon joint actions through the UN to stop genocide or to provide disaster relief. It means that 1) unilateral actions to reduce a threat should be taken regardless of international support; 2) these actions should be limited to reducing the threat to an acceptable level, not eliminating it unless absolutely necessary (containment); 3) where elimination of the threat is required or where there is a failed state, limit your intervention to what is required to restore a functioning, stabile government; and 4) if you determine that installing a democracy is absolutely necessary, plan on a twenty to fifty year commitment.
Bookmarks