Quote:"undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."
And George Bush doesn't have the kind of "vision" it takes to undertake a grand anything! His intent hasn't been to prevent rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. (How did this guy define Iraq as a "rogue state" anyhow??) If that was the case, why not invade Pakistan or North Korea who already have weapons of mass destruction? With the tension between Pakistan and India, we'll all be lucky if they don't try to blow each other up and take the rest of the world with them as they do it! The way this guy writes is a bunch of hooey too. "...an outmoded international system that was really nothing more than a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945." Well considering 1945 was 59 years ago, why is the UN still in existence today if it is so outdated?
The idea of Bush being some sort of visionary is laughable. I have no doubt that avenging his father and having an influence in an oil-rich Arab nation were factors in his decision to invade Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, his public reason for invading.
Would I like to see democracy in the middle east? Well I would like to see the end of any and all human rights violations that exist there, but not through the killing/wounding of innocent citizens and the deaths/wounding of American soldiers. Besides...this war didn't address that issue. After the last of the American troops eventually pull out (whenever that is) the human rights violations will no doubt continue.
