I don't see that we have much say other than insuring that the Muslin government will be friendly to the US.
How you gonna do that?
By politely reminding them of what happened to the last Iraqi government that wasn't friendly to the US.
So the rationalisation of American pre-emptive war has now deteriorated from "they had WMD that they could give to the terrorists who attacked us any moment now" to "thats just what happens if you're not friendly to the US"?
Well, at least it's honest. And it does go back to a long tradition of US foreign (Cold War) policy ...
When trying to keep thugs in line, one sometimes has to act thuggish.
And I meant the word "friendly" in a international diplomatic sense, not in a sense you use with your personal friends. There's a difference.
Note the near-instinctive equation of all those who are "not friendly to the US" with "thugs".
Of course, to me, any government that invades countries just cause they wont do what it says is the "thug" in question.
But I guess CQ here is simply openly expressing the kind of instincts that have
, in fact, shaped recent US foreign policy ...
I truly believe many of those who shape or support Rumsfeldian policy do
, in fact, instinctively equate "those who are not friendly to the US" with "thugs" or "rogue states". As evidenced by the number of very thuggish states that are left alone or even stridently supported just because they are
friendly to the US.
And many who buy into this equation, which magically translates all moral claims into geostrategic realpolitik and vice versa, might not even be aware of doing so. Thus, "rogue states" are those who ridicule and flaunt the will and the rules of the international community - unless that international community happens to disagree with the US, in which case it is "irrelevant" and those who buck it are heroes.