I was wrong. I’ll admit it. Bush indeed is the great uniter.
He’s managed to unite the entire world of Islamic radicals, Cuba and even Venezuela. He’s amazing!
While I don’t agree with those idiots or their recent spew at the UN, I can imagine that the man on the street being fed propaganda in foreign lands probably does.
Anyway, to get out of the rhetoric and into some pseudo-analysis, it seems to be clear that the US simply does not have the ability to conquer and pacify any significant portion of the world. At least not simultaneously.
Sure, maybe no conventional forces can stand against the US, but the problems we are facing are not conventional, are they?
I’m not bashing the US, at all, it’s just that the empirical evidence would suggest that there is no realistic way to invade multitudes of nations and actually deal with the aftermath in a meaningful way.
I’m going to guess that China is the big benefactor from all this. The US is mired in shit for next several decades. Iran will be causing trouble for quite a while. North Korea will be causing trouble for a while. Venezeula will be making noise. Cuba would like to make noise, but it’s just going to sit there like a bump on a log as usual.
If I were a suspicious person, and I thought that China had some hardline world domination ideas, I might even believe they are acting subtly behind the scenes to fan the flames.
Whatever the case, I truly hope the US gets around to electing a group of people that have some foresight and wisdom next time around. People who understand that force is but one of many tools in the arsenal – and perhaps not the most powerful one.
Maybe an administration that truly understands that the pen is mightier than the sword. Especially given the limitations of the sword in the era of modern assymetrical resistance.
Anyone care to give an armchair analysis of how they see the next decade of international affairs playing out?