Once again, Americans are given a false choice – between either complete isolationism or being an imperial “world ruler” who dominates and directs all other countries according to what’s best for short-term U.S. interests.

We fail to even question why our foreign policies have gone so wrong in the last 60 years, and therefore we just keep on repeating the same mistakes. As Glenn said about Cordesman, “No reasonable person could listen to what he says and hear anything that challenges the fundamental premises of America's imperial role in the world.”

As Gary Kamiya points out today, when it comes to the Middle East we either try to blow them up or bribe them, but we never “try to find out what the people in the region actually want -- or what might actually work.”

We approach the entire region with the mindset that we know best, and that it is our right to dominate because of our superior military force.

That mindset, says Kamiya, has “retarded the development of the region, propped up autocratic regimes, helped give rise to al-Qaida, damaged human rights, turned an entire region against us, enabled Israel as it stumbled into a calamitous occupation and severely harmed our long-term global interests.”

The Foreign Policy community dismisses anyone who challenges the imperialist mindset as an “isolationist” who cannot be taken seriously, but that is not the case at all.

The U.S. could very well play an active role in the world without being “imperialist” – without trying to rule and dominant all others, but how we would could play such a role is never discussed, because our entire foreign policy debate is framed in terms of the “extremes” with all other options excluded.

Our Foreign Policy Community approaches all issues, all problems, with the mindset of wanting to “win” for America, as a zero sum game.

The neo-cons have taken this mindset to an extreme where now even diplomacy is considered weakness. The idea of living in an interdependent world where others are accommodated rather than blown up or bribed is a viewpoint that they are incapable of grasping.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/08/14/bush_arms_deal/

Even if a cowardly Congress did manage to summon up the courage to re-write both AUMFs would that stop Bush? I don’t think so. They’d find some obscure loophole or technicality to justify what they did “legally” and rely on the propaganda machine to reinforce it. Congress, for all practical purposes, has been rendered “quaint” when it comes to foreign policy.

I think that the GOP base has become so extreme on this that there will be no appeal to the center by whoever the nominee is on this issue and they’ll leave themselves no choice but roll the dice and bet that a “hot war” with Iran, if conducted at the right time, will cause enough chaos, terror and fear, that it just might tilt the election over to the GOP.

Their numbers are so bad right now – they’ve got nothing to lose. And the rhetoric has been so extreme for so long now, that they’ve given themselves very few other options. This declaration undermines the hopes for any diplomacy, and gives the message to Iran that we will accept nothing less than regime change and submission to our will.

It is a victory for Cheney over any relative “moderates” that remain in the administration. I don’t think the question is whether they’ll bomb Iran, only when, and I don’t see anyone, including the military establishment, able to stop them.

I’ve still got “hope” that we won’t do this, but I see nothing to base it upon. The situation is looking just too much like the prelude to our “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq.

To do something stupid in Iran would pretty much discredit the idea of "preemptive war" in the public eye for another 40 years.

I think that for the public that idea has already been discredited, look at the polls Glenn cited recently. The public was also overwhelmingly against the “surge” too, but Bush ignored both public opinion and the Iraq Study Group.

As Matt Yglesias points out today, most Americans have grown disillusioned with Bush’s grandiose view of “the war on terror” but, he says, “the conservative base appears to be more committed to this vision at this point than is George W. Bush.”

Giuliani, he points out, wants to “double down” on neo-conservative foreign policy. There’s no support for that outside of the dwindling GOP base, but that’s all this administration has cared about for quite some time, and it looks like Giuliani would be even worse.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_giuliani_doctrine.php

(see also Anonymous Liberal on Giuliani)

Speaking of purple fingers and our magnanimous quest to bring “democracy” to Iraq, when is Iraq’s next election scheduled?

Perhaps that is a naïve question, but I haven’t heard a word about any upcoming purple-fingered photo-ops. Couldn’t they have arranged something a little less transparent than a Beltway-operative staged coup?

Why aren’t they even trying to wrap their coup up in the trappings of democracy? Did someone miss a memo? Where’s the “pro-democracy” propaganda? Why no purple-fingered Republicans? Is their catapult broken too?