The reason the US has never had the credibility we somehow feel we deserve is because our foreign policy is so hypocritical.

We're for "self determination"...unless those pesky citizens determine to have a form of government we don't like...then we overthrow it.

We're for "economic security"...unless the citizens decide the oil in their ground belongs to them.

We're for "freedom"...unless that freedom includes freedom from US interference and influence.

We're for "democracy"...until someone is elected that doesn't play ball.

The empire needs to fall. The whole idea of empire needs to fall.

I can make a case for hanging around those roving ice cream trucks with bells, and comfiscating some kid's cone.

If we were to continue the pre-emptive war/imperialism philosophy, we will eventually know everything there is to know about insurgencies.

What do you think, should the guy that said this, be tossed as well?

Even if one disagrees with their desire for an ongoing military presence in Iraq, one can at least respect the intellectual honesty and principled stand of those pro-war advocates who acknowledge that we are far from ready to leave Iraq right now, and that achieving the original goals will require an ongoing, sustained commitment to a prolonged occupation. Having supported this war and subsequent invasion on the ground that U.S. national security will be improved if we create a stable, democratic government in Iraq, they commendably insist on staying and trying to "finish" what is so clearly an unfinished job, notwithstanding the fact that a prolonged occupation will subject Republicans to serious political difficulties, to put it mildly.

If not, the whole O'Hanlon etc. meme goes down the tubes.

They have a built-in system of very potent careerist incentives to ensure that there is no real deviation from the bi-partisan consensus concerning America's role in the world.

The careerist incentives are quite severe, because any one deviating from the Foreign Policy “consensus” simply loses their seat at the Foreign Policy table and has to go sit with the “dirty smelly hippies” over at the unserious table of wackos and crazies.

The “dirty smelly hippy” slur is not just snark from Atrios, it’s real.

When Ron Paul dared to bring up problems with the Diebold machines in Iowa the bloggers at Red State (completely ignoring the actual problems with the machines) took it as proof that that he was a hard-core leftist and only despicable dirty people could support him:

That's the standard left line.

Ron Paul has only about 3,000 real supporters nationwide. He's got another 5000 or so who are just damn dirty liberal hippies in need of real jobs.

It's only a matter of time before Cindy Sheehan endorses him.

Careerists at the Foreign Policy Table know that they will be in need of “real job” if they deviate too far from the “serious people” – so the choice is theirs: they can remain a respected foreign policy analyst or become an unemployed dirty smelly hippy who nobody listens to.

That’s not entirely a “Hobson’s choice” but close enough to keep them in line.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/do_we_have_conclusive_proof_that_ron_pauls_supporters_are_mostly_anti_war_lefty_hippies

A seperate marked section of Arlington Cemetery reserved for and dedicated to the brave souls lost to insurgencies.

The Serious Policy folks only believe that GOP presidents should be allowed to defend our sovereignty in preemptive, unilateral, and hegemonic ways. Look at the nonsense flung at Clinton who supported the effort to abort ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. He's not GOP so he doesn't get to wage war. The hypocrisy of this bunch along with their smug self certitude is a clear and present danger to our national welfare.

The thing is, Glenn, that the idea that the United States can attack other nations at will has been in place at least since the Mexican War in the 1840s. I'm not saying it's morally right, just that Iraq and our current dilemma is really just a symptom of the Bushies' habit of pissing in the punchbowl. The government has always been run by tacit modii vivendi permitting those in charge to sidestep the law in various ways as long as it is done circumspectly and in small doses. The Bushies have ruined these gentlemen's agreements by spotlighting and overusing them, to bizarre and absurd and terrifying lengths, as elements of national policy.

And, just to brighten everybody's day, here's Tom Lehrer, 1965:

When someone makes a move

Of which we don't approve

Who is it that always intervenes?

UN and OAS

They have their place, I guess

But first -- SEND THE MARINES!

. . .

For might makes right

Until they've seen the light

They've got to be protected

All their rights respected

Until someone we like can be elected. . .

From Glenn's post:

"The Number One Rule of the bi-partisan Foreign Policy Community is that America has the right to invade and attack other countries at will because American power is inherently good and our role in the world is to rule it though the use of superior military force."

Scott Ritter, an expert who has been completely marginalized by the MSM for his "unseriousness," has made the argument that the policy of American hegemony was the leit motif of the past several Presidents, including Clinton.

Fast forward to a Hillary presidency and we see the same foreign policy stance. She has never disputed the accepted orthodoxy that America must be preeminent in the world and has the right to exert its will militarily. Her foreign policy would presumably be more cautious, but the underlying assumptions would be the same.

Having the Democrats in power would slow, but not stop, dangerous military adventures in the service of empire. Hillary is Serious, according to the pundit class, as opposed to the Unserious Barack Obama, because she shares the goal of American global dominance. We're the guys in the white hats, out to blow away the bad guys, as if the planet were a lawless frontier town.

There is going to be some serious blow-back as the American Empire meets the inevitable violent resistance. As Ritter says, no empire ends well and he forsees America's "sad demise," at some point in the future.