Chapman has it right again:
Stopping proliferation is not a one-time fix. Says University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer, author of “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” “It’s not viable just to conquer and occupy a country to get those weapons.”
That’s because the next government may also want to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it’s a democracy — as democracies such as India and Israel already have. “You have to stay forever,” he warns.
And the $442 billion Dubya wants to spend on this offensive defense in 2007 is just not worth it, considering that the containment and deterrence strategy currently in place has worked pretty damn well. It doesn’t require stationing troops in Iraq forever or installing a secular, constitutional democracy amid a hostile populace.
This all would be simply academic if it weren’t for the fact that real dangers continue to evade our supposed protectors.
Invading Iraq is like the War on Drugs. Isolated, it’s a bad policy. But combined with the fact that much greater dangers actually exist (in the War on Drugs, murderers, rapists and thieves; in the Iraqi war, Al Qaeda terrorists) and our ability to combat it is weakened by this distraction, the policy is just about insane.