Decius wrote: Maybe the real reason we're down there is to send a message to our own dictators that they have a long term job to do and they better not fuck us.
Dictators emerge
the CIA or whomever may pick a particular candidate (one bully amongst an unsavory selection) as a potential dictator but the individual still has to have what it takes and will, by the very nature of being on the initial short list, be inclined to follow their own path. As you have noted before Decius any leader in Iraq won't be tolerated by many Iraqis if they are perceived as an American poodle.
Consequently, despite arms deals and the rather large assumption that American money can build an army and impose any sort of order to suit American tastes in the short or medium term in the context of the chaos America has produced and where America's own military has failed to achieve that same order, over the long term it is likely there will be prolonged conflict and the CIA will fund a number of potential candidates and thereby fuel the fire because none of the candidates are entirely viable from an American viewpoint. The CIA will argue the case for not having all its eggs in one basket, and where the only stability on offer may be Iran centered to which they will clearly prefer ongoing slaughter.
It strikes me as an example of American arrogance and hubris to pretend you can just install a dictator -- the CIA has been playing that game in Central and South America for years and generally made a monumental mess of it. You mention Pinochet seemingly in the context of a benevolent dictator and as an example of when America got it right -- suffice to say i think that is contentious.
I think many people in the rest of the planet would be rather pleased if the bungling morons [the US government and the CIA] would butt out and leave people to run their own affairs and make their own mistakes. Planet Earth is not America's private domain and quite a few of us object to it being treated as such.
A more multilateral approach is I would argue both in America's and the world's best interests. Yes America is forced to deal with the likes of Iran and North Korea in a world of instability and weapons of mass destruction but that is the land of grown ups where we must all learn to live together. It is not America's destiny, in my view, despite what some Americans appear to think, to be our planet's unilateral policeman. No policemen without representation, I say. Good policing is ultimately a product of consent. Consent can be achieved though force, which has failed in Iraq, or a combination of force together with perceived moral authority, America didn't win the latter argument in Iraq. In the wider world, well specically in the west, authority is perceived as being derived up from the people through the conduit of elections. In Iraq authority it would seem derives from family, tribe, sect and religion. If the US had followed the Powell doctrine and begun the first phase with a more stable Iraq, avoided the early chaos and looting, then the results of getting rid of Saddam and establishing stability would possibly have paid a moral dividend in the form of winning consent, perceived moral authority and legitimacy. Regardless lets deal with facts on the ground and leave that to historians. What is the way forward? More dictators? America has rediscovered that an unpleasant stability is perhaps preferrable to an unpleasant chaos however re dictators the sorcerer's apprentice really ought to stop because Mickey Mouse is doing a lousy job. I actually think an Iranian hegemony is actually the preferred option. RE: Does Iraq need more debate? | 
