Is the US's new Policy the right way?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"I'm not happy about the potential for preemptive attack believe me... In such a situation we didn't worry too much about international law."

You could justify something like "clear and present danger". The main problem is that I do not trust a militarism and paranoia driven apparatus to make that decision, be it the Bush White House, China's Commie relicts, Russia's collecting russian earth crowd or whoever. The same logic and auto-determining legitimizes eg China attacking Taiwan - just claim a threat. Also by US standards it is absurd to demand restraint from India against Pakistan.

I agree.

Originally posted by Roland
"The war on terror doesn't need as much political persuasion, so it doesn't get as much ink, but it's big."

Big but very lowscale.

It's low intensity conflict, but there is an immense amount of labor involved, FBI, CIA, Special Forces and State Department people are all swamped right now. These people cost a lot more than regular military people, and there are fewer of them. The only thing that is cheaper is their equipment.

Originally posted by Roland
"This is an area I would tend to move more slowly and thouroughly than Bush is."

Well what is the US doing in Afghanistan apart from some special forces that go cavesearching and play bodyguards for Karsai ?

We're building an East-West airport near Herat to help out in phase three of the Axis of Evil wars.

Honestly, I'm not completely sure. There is some infrastructure work going on (mostly roads), but it isn't on an immense scale. Politically we seem to just be happy that we aren't getting attacked any more than we are now.

[Roland]

"Politically we seem to just be happy that we aren't getting attacked any more than we are now."

Well the price for the easy victory are the warlords, and it looks like there's trouble brewing there....

[Spiffor]

The more I think of it, the more this upcoming war seems to be about oil, and nothing else.
While Saddam is a bastard murderer, and a potential threat for the stability of this region, he's far from being the only one : for example, Mugabe could once again spark genocides in this region of Africa (which already knew Rwandan and Burundian genocides), which could kill millions.
ANother example, Israel is an extreme threat to the stability in the region, because it's permanently threatened of non-existence (when you look at ti, very few countries and cultures know such an extreme threat), and will do anything for its defense, including the use of nuclear weapons if they have to (note : I don't compare Israel's democacy to Mugabe's or Saddam's despotisms ; I'm talking about international instability).

But, unlike Iraq, Israel and Zimbabwe don't have a very important share of oil reserves. American oil majors are already tied with the "democratic authority" (read puppet government) that will arise after Saddam's dismissal. It's almost decided, the Iraqi council currently in London will take over.
Also, by achieving stability in Iraq, the US (and its allies), will have at last a safe road from the Caspian sea to the Ocean : Afghanistan proved bad because of the warlords, there are plenty of ethnic struggles between the Caspian and Istanbul.
Also, securing so many oil sources will allow the US to attack the Saudi "friends" who are the worst terrorist threat to the US (they send so much of their money to fundamentalist, anti-western islamists).

What I'd like to see from Bush is to be true : this is a war about oil, not a personal vendetta nor the struggle of the free world against the evil overlord. I couldn't hope this from someone as hypocrite as Clinton, but Bush being an blunt cowboy, such a thing could happen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Also, by achieving stability in Iraq, the US (and its allies), will have at last a safe road from the Caspian sea to the Ocean

They would have to attack Iran for your theory to hold water. Iraq isn't even close to the Caspian sea.