So one objection to the administration's hopes for a postwar democratic regime installation is that it will be too expensive and won't garner the necessary, long-term support from the American public. As Parris notes, however, this objection is also a thin reed on which to build a real doubt about a U.S. led invasion; perhaps the commitment will materialize, and perhaps international support for a postwar reconstruction effort will also materialize. If that happens, then I was just dead wrong on that score. I've got no problem with that. I also thought the Red Sox would win the World Series sometime during the last third of the twentieth century. I don't want to jinx my baseball predictions for the twenty-first century by going into more details about my current hopes, either. . .

A more fundamental doubt intrudes, however. The problem with "strategic hamlets" was not that we didn't commit enough resources to ensure the conditions for their success. The problem was that the whole idea was a mistake: walling off villages, attempting to keep out the NVA [oops! more appropriately, the Viet Cong -- BEM], and hoping to create loyalty toward occupation troops. I don't think that my argument relies exclusively on fears about getting "mired down" in a hopeless guerrilla conflict. Again, perhaps preliminary impressions from Afghanistan are a red herring; perhaps Somalia (or Lebanon or Haiti) isn't the right comparison; perhaps there will be significant support from the population and significant support from peacekeeping troops and at least non-opposition on the part of Iran. Perhaps Kurds can be brought into the bargain. Perhaps the terrorist threat within Iraq can be minimized. At least I've got a list of topics on which to consult the experts. . .

So, let's say all of these things cut the right way for the U.S. What's left is an objection based on uneasiness about the U.S.'s role as an imperial power. Now some of the uneasiness undoubtedly derives from the sense that things never cut the right way for empires all the time. In addition, what "cuts the right way" for the "center" will be perceived quite differently at the "periphery." Moral relativism? Hardly. It's the question of being on one side of power or the other.

Sketches of thoughts rather than argument. Well, it's Monday, after all. And you're reading this for free.