Iraq--if we take on our responsibilities in the postwar period seriously and diligently (which we had better!)--will be enough of a handful for awhile, I think. Right now we have to tackle the task of restoring order and safety for the average Iraqi--the looting may be a good way of allowing the people to blow off steam, but if we let lawlessness continue indefinitely then what have we accomplished? We need to restore the basic infrastructure, the running water, electricity, hospitals, etc.--running water especially, the last thing we want is a plague to spread on the country we just liberated.... We need to work fast for the most urgent necessities, but in the long term we need to not just restore the country infrastructure-wise to what it was before the war, but improve upon it. In short, we need to finish what we started in Iraq, before we shift focus to some other adventure. And I would say that would mean a couple years at least. If we do this RIGHT, we may not have need to go after Syria, as the regime there would feel pressure to reform due to democratization WORKING in Iraq, for those across the border to see.
And as for Iran, the people had a revolution there not all that long ago without outside help--the 1979 revolution was THEIRS, and how I'm seeing it now, it is theirs for them to analyze, learn things from, revise, and fine-tune. And the youth on the streets there now are doing that--and unlike in Saddam's Iraq, the "system" in Iran seems more capable of receptivity to critical voices from its people, albeit that it may be moving toward the center more slowly than we perhaps would like. Democracy actually has a chance to develop out of homegrown efforts there--which I think is the best way it can develop, just like Americans "made it happen" in 1776, in that the people know they did it themselves, and thus what they themselves build is truly a government "by the people, for the people" in a way an outside-induced democracy can never be. Not saying outside-induced democracies are a bad thing necessarily, but if it can be done from the inside (i.e. without a dictator that will nip absolutely every effort he sees in the bud, like Saddam) then so much the better, because the people will fight that much harder to defend it, because it will be a product of their labors, blood, sweat, and tears.
And I think as far as the whole WMD issue, democracies will likely be more responsible with them--due to them having more accountability by their very nature. Iran may be on that road already, we can help the seed spread if we do good by Iraq (and less desirable seeds will spread if we don't), but should let the Iranians grow into it themselves--and I think they will.
North Korea? THAT one scares me. I'm also very fond of Japan, and if I understand correctly they have the missile range to nuke Tokyo. Japan's already had two too many of those
. A war may cost that great city as well as Seoul.... I think they may be past the stage where we can disarm them without getting our fingers nuked. Let's just hope we can interdict any illicit "exports", with the help of China....
But Iraq is THE project right now, and will be for some time. Let's not get all excited at what else we can do in the region, until we take care of the country we have, like it or not, taken under our wing. Actually following through on our promises will, I think, help greatly to reverse the hard feelings our NOT doing so in 1991 helped create amongst many people in the country.
