Mark, thanks for your comments. Yes, Vietnam was heavily internationalized. But that war was a senseless slaughter of American lives. It served no purpose, and the ending was that much more horrific because of sustained US involvement: the violent takeover of the South, the developments in Laos and Cambodia, and so forth.
On Iraq, I'm not actually advocating its break-up; what I have suggested is that a "three-state solution" might be an option in the long-run. I do not see how a majoritarian theocracy can be avoided in the absence of a monumental shift in political culture. And that shift simply can't be imposed from without.
As for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: You're right, they are not beloved by the neocons. But there are certain political and economic realities in the US-Sa'ud relationship that not even the neocons can alter. My proposal: Go after, in every way possible---financial, military, economic, political---the Al Qaeda network that targeted the US on 9/11. Period. If this requires interfacing with Pakistani and Saudi Arabian authorities: fine. But the fundamental structure of the relationship here is not going to be changed without a fundamental change in the structure of global political economy, which is what I believe is necessary in the long-run.
More advice: The US shouldn't get involved in side conflicts like Iraq, and shouldn't attempt to remake a whole region of the world on the basis of a Wilsonian dream. Now that the US is involved in Iraq, of course, I think the quicker it exits from there, the better.
In any event, my whole point is that none of this will happen... because certain processes are already at work, which make such extrication a virtual impossibility.
In my "New Leftist," "Objectivist"-glossed dreamworld, I actually believe the US can and should follow a foreign policy based on principle. But such a policy of principle is impossible in the context of current political and economic structures.
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on December 8, 2003 at 7:24 AM