My little theory

Right, so, to carry on the momentum, I'll add a second entry. This time, it's politics.

To start off with, here is the article that I'm using as introduction to the thoughs that follow:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ef4edfbe-a19f-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html

From President Bush's latest address, I'm willing to wager that he's decided that he's just going to carry on until his tenure as President ends. He can then pass on the baton to the next guy and come out saying that 'at least my heart was in the right place.' The problem with such good intentions is the fact that if you don't really consider the impact of such decisions and even just ideology for its own sake is not enough. It's debatable whether that's the case in one's life, but in politics, you always need to know what you're going to do after you've made such a decision. Especially as the ruler of the world's strongest and most important power, you need to mould the impact to suit your own ends, and not just expect people to feed off your child-like enthusiasm. I think I'm cured of the malaise that affects most students in England to think that GW is a cynical idiot, as I think that he's just a very poor strategist, as is his team. I mean, yes, hindsight is a bitch, but even a layman like me would not disband the army, and that's just because I'd be afraid that they be used like the Freikorps after the First World War. Coupled with that, they aren't under a similar banner of nationality, politics or even belief, so that makes it even harder.

Well, I'm sure the problems with Iraq are an overtalked issue, so as not to steal the thunder of those commentators that have greater insight into the war than I can ever hope to, I'll continue with a different thought: if the end is inevitable, why is a more powerful Iran more dangerous? I mean, it's probably an idealist notion of this, but if Iran wants to play with the big boys and is insistent on destabilising the American position in the region, then why not let them take it and let them deal with it? I would almost say that this would be a much better alternative, and it gets back to doing what the US was always pretty good at (even though it always bit it in the ass, as they have a patchy memory): supporting rebel groups. Instead of focusing on keeping the mess that is Iraq together, why don't they do what they managed so spectacularly in Iraq - expose the amalgamation that is Iran.

As far as I see it, both of those states are just about as unnatural as each other, so why not destabilise the region further, under the guise of handing control of the region fully to Iran and then come in as saviours? The problem with this is whether Iran could do it (no way at this stage), but if it did, then we'd probably have a nuclear conflict on our hands between them and the Israelis. Well, that would be an interesting one. Still, I would say that both countries have such a history of erudition and culture that it would be a surprise to say the least. On the other hand, I agree, that all this would probably hand it more to the Russians or the Chinese, as nobody in their right mind would want the US back after this debacle. However, if the next administration got its act together did a good job in a fairly manageable country (not sure that would be Somalia, but it would surely be simpler), then the stock of the US might rise. Also, it's best remembered that the US still has a lot of friends in the area and people who would rather see a more grown-up US than any other power affecting the area.

However, again, the problem here would be the politics that accompanies it all, as I'm not sure that a Democrat president would be tempted to remain the head of an interventionist power. Maybe, America will leave the world affairs to the UN (why should it ever do that though?), and just look after it's own affairs? It pretty much worked in its favour before, as it's arguable that the World Wars brought it more good than anything else, and probably completed the cycle to super-powerdom quicker than it would have otherwise. So, yeah, perhaps for the US, despite its idealism, isolationism works.

So, yeah, these are my unfinished thoughts on the issue, but though it's fresh and not worth publishing, I thought I'd put it down in any case to keep up the rhythm of writing on this at a regular interval of sorts.