Its far easier to imagine evil, chortling gnomes and trolls slavering over the prospect of an ill-got meal than to conceptualize principled, concern-ridden individuals with homes and lawns and kids to educate and dogs to walk swept along in a current not of their making or choosing, hoping to influence its course by the strength of their resolve. Its so much more convenient when folks one would rather not like for whatever reason and likely never will meet can be seen lesser beings than oneself. That is comforting to some, I suppose. I almost envy them. At least they don't have to think about the problems.
I'll assume, correctly or not, that you might be referring to an earlier post of mine portraying Rummy and Wolfowitz.
For myself, it is absolutely easy to imagine principled men caught up in ugly circumstances and having to procede along distasteful paths. In the immediate case, Colin Powell comes quickly to mind. As do, for the most part, soldiers in any army at any time.
Unfortunately, it is equally easy to imagine, or remember, men who believe themselves to be directed by worthy or correct principles whose actions (and principles) are far less noble and far more destructive than the singular option you allow. Allowing but this singular option is surely as comforting as any other position, given it be fixed.
You, and others, believe a war here and now in this situation to be an optimal solution. I, and still others, do not and think it more likely to cause more problems than it will solve. Both positions have voice inside and outside your country.
You, and others, believe (I'm assuming) that the key players in this administration's drive to Iraq are well intentioned men, insignificantly swayed in their world views by either dogma or special interest. I - I'll speak just for myself here, though the opinion would find reflection elsewhere - think them well intentioned in some regards only. Firm resolve is admirable only where that which is resolved upon is a clear good, and only where it is the only possible/probable alternative. Firm resolve can also have very unhappy or destructive consequences.
Why did Brent Scowcroft make his comment regarding Perle? Scowcroft is no mincingly-footed, effete Frenchman (with a small penis). What of Perle's rejoinder that Bush now has to continue as a matter of 'confidence'? (the argument earlier from HoT that Perle is merely a 'consultant' is a touch dismissive, given his long term relationship with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...and one might suggest that Scowcroft is more likely in the know that my friend ). What of Woodward's note regarding Sept 12 and the clear disengenuousness of subsequent attempts to link Sadaam and 9-11? What of the new official doctrines of pre-emption and of hegemony (it is the best word)? You, and others, wave aside these relevant and highly questionable issues too easily, I think.
Trying to understand and discuss why you and others do dismiss these issues, in my opinion far too easily, is what is causing the sparks here. I've likely lost one or two friends already because this is impermissable territory to enter, most particularly for someone from outside. But the exterior view has some advantage in objectivity.
Do I think the US is too militaristic? I do. The argument is essentially that of Eisenhower and Jefferson, but from the perspective of the present. Surely this is possible, even if very difficult to establish in any statistical sense, but much is like that, yes?
Do I think the US suffers from a distinctive tendency to function unhumbly, and with too great a self-certainty that its values and perceptions are superior to others? I do. And I find the clearest understanding of these dynamics through the work of Hofstadter. The greeks knew hubris is always dangerous, and most of all in a situation where such singular power is held.
Do I think the US is a greater force for betterment of the world than for the converse? I do. But the caveat is all the above.
So what do I do? Fall into line for the sake of unanimity? The push for unanimity, though a part of group life, when it is enforced, can become the precursor to a totalitarian dynamic.