Centerfield

Everything is wrong? We have ruined the chances for a Democratic Iraq? An international outlaw? It's not that I think that mistakes have not been made... I just don't see that it has all been a failure. I don't think the Middle East and Europe where in love with the United States before George W. Bush. Mr. Zakaria is a little extreme for my taste... It sounds like rhetoric to me.

As opposed to the chances of democracy in Iraq under Saddam? Or the non-poisonous anti-Americanism that led to 9/11, and Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate?

Mmm, that's pretty over-the-top if you ask me. It sounds like the conclusion of someone who's taken careful and particular note of every thing that hasn't gone perfectly and put it in the loss column.

It would be interesting if we could take every arab and every european who is "now" anti-american and find out how anti-american they were before. And like I've said before, there was never much chance that we were going to get hearty pats on the back and well-done! handshakes for intervening.

It's like Wilt Chamberlain said. Nobody roots for Goliath.

I don't think I agree, bk. Look at what Bush's father did in the Gulf War. He got a heck of a lot of countries to sign on to that intervention. The differences in approach between father and son couldn't be more stark, IMO. Dubya arrogantly tried to bully other countries into backing him instead of using actual diplomacy like his father did.

BTW, check out the new siglink. :-)

Kevin, I don't hold Bush blameless by any means. But I also don't assign all the blame for poisonous anti-americanism to him either.

It was clear to me from the get-go that the Bush admin was very determined to depose Hussein, and very reluctant to let diplomatic negotiations and halting inspections continue endlessly. I felt Bush pushed harder than was necessary and was not especially open-minded.

But it also seemed pretty clear to me that many among the ranks of the European countries were too reluctant to support decisive action in the face of extended defiance. Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who invaded another country without provocation on top of his extended ruthless abuse of his own citizens. He should not have been shown infinite patience. And in the end, that always seems to be the problem with the UN, that its patience knows no limits.

So while I felt Bush showed a lack of flexibility and much impatience, It doesn't look that bad to me in light of the UN's unwillingness to act forcefully. France eventually made it known that they would not support a resolution to use force under any circumstances.

Now MAYBE a more skilled and flexible diplomatic effort on our part would have brought more people around to the Bush admin view, or led to Hussein's deposing without an invasion, but I doubt it.

I've never been a fan of Bush for many reasons I've stated in the past. But he was right when he said the UN risked irrelevancy. Until the UN starts showing the sack to occasionally stand as one and say to someone like Hussein "it's time for you to go, come hell or high water," they are an organization of VERY limited utility. Now, of course, such instances should be very rare, but if you're not willing to take such a responsibility when a dictator invades another country and slaughters his citizens at the drop of a hat, what good are you?