Damn, George looks like he ate a bird, he's so tickled with himself.

And on one hand, I guess he deserves to be. The US military did indeed sweep into Iraq and did indeed appear to take the country with a minimum of casualties all the way around. The strategy of relatively small, fast, and swift appears to be vindicated and one of Bush's central goals, that of regime change, seems to have been acheived.

So for a moment, let's take a pause and tip a hat to the women and men of our military, who, for the most-est part, pulled off a difficult job with professionalism and aplumb.

However, let's not get too ga-ga about it all. There were only two real worries about the US military in Iraq. First, that something freakish like the mother-of-all sandstorms would hit and decimate our forces. Second, that we wouldn't deploy sufficient force so that this thing would drag out unnecissarily. So the fact that we won is something of a forgone conclusion.

Before March 19, the neocons spoke about ends justifying the means to explain the political maneuverings. The goal of removing Hussein justified insulting and ignoring allies, marginalizing the UN, and adopting a unilateral stance. Now, however, methinks instead we will be hearing more about how it is the means that justify the ends. In other words, we have won militarily, therefore the military means of securing the peace will justify whatever organizational end we so deem to install. The argument will be that it's got nothing to do with paybacks to the global business elite, it's got to do with military necessity. Hey, if you can have it both ways, go for it. It's sure a lot easier than answering the tough ones.

By deeds, if not by words, the Bush administration is now saying that if America doesn't like the regime in a particular country, then America can go do something about it, no questions asked. There is no need to placate allies. There is no need to discuss with the UN. The United States of America is becoming a world apart. How are we to address this? Who decides? The President of the day, or Congress, or national plebescite?

This world domination thing is a tricky business. It allows for no allies. There will be no friendships of equals. We can not allow any alliance that we do not sponsor. 

There is no indication as far as I have seen that this current rise of unilateralism will end any differently than those in the past (that the source of the unilaterialism burns out and collapses). That's why I'm in favor of trying multilateralism. It is possible to run a multi-valued win/win game in an open information context.

In the end, it reminds me of the Bass Brothers trying to corner the silver market.

Some Questions
I don't have a military background, so I will presume only to ask questions. Are the populations of Syria and Iran similar to the population of Iraq, particularly in terms of defense of homeland? What is the cost and time required to restock the supplies and armaments expended in Iraq? How much resource must be left in place for "nation building", and how many of such "experiments in democracy" can we run and still have striking force?

For me, the political questions are more importants: For every action there is an equal reaction. What will be the reaction to Afganistan and Iraq? The neocons say that the embattled People will rise up and embrace American political and economic democracy. Islamists predict another Beruit, where the People will become disgusted with the decadence and immortality of American culture and will rebel. Is there such a thing as a theocratic democracy? or Does democracy require the western economic model?

And: How much will this cost in dollars, opportunity, and people and for how long?

And how will I judge to answers as they come in?

1. The sooner we're out, the better. That means that we accept that disagreement can be constructive because we truly turn over local control.
2. That I feel more secure than less. Major category breakdowns of secure include physically, economically, politically, socially, culturally, emotionally, and spiritually. It's a constant balancing using different, and at times incompatible, currencies.
3. That the outcome is fair. That doesn't mean even-steven, that means fair.

A final (snide) note: It's notable to watch how the American Enterprise Institute shapes its activist government. It's not a matter of smaller government, its a matter of a change of focus:

• 25% increase in the Defense Department, from 3% to 3.8% of GDP
• Sharp increase in domestic surveillance -- US Patriot Act and now Patriot II
• Increase in resource extraction and decrease in resource protection -- a double whammy
• Increase in activist tax policy