Quote:
Originally posted by plix+Dec 30 2005, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (plix @ Dec 30 2005, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Borodin@Dec 30 2005, 08:56 AM
Like most things, it is a title that only becomes generally known after it has ceased representing reality.
|
"Leader" has become a nice way of saying dictator in this instance. Much as I dislike Bush and as much as he has devalued the respectability of the office in at least my eyes, the American presidency still represents the most powerful position in the world. No one else could have executed the unilateral action in the middle east in direct contradiction to the wishes of the UN and gotten away with it.
[/b][/quote]
But Bush has not gotten away with invading Iraq. While the US has the military power to do what it pleases, it does not have the power to do so with impunity. Thanks to high tech wizardry, the US armed forces are much more capable than the small number of its men would suggest, but it is now involved in precisely the kind of conflict where it performs worst-- a low intensity conflict against a diffuse enemy. The kind of conflict where warm bodies matter more than hot technology. Insurgencies are fought by having a presence everywhere that matters, and the US occupation force does not have anywhere near enough people to do that.
Bush will not have gotten way with his unilateral actions; until, US troops are home and a representative democracy friendly to the west is stably ensconced in Iraq.