[VRM]

Jamo,
Yep, many do ignore Waltz, Snyder, and a bunch of others. I do not. I am firmly in the realist camp. Chamberlain was a hopeful idiot*. Hussein was contained, Hitler was not. I completely agree that states do not always act for good. However, I also subscribe to a bit of Morganthau in that that morals really have no place in foreign relations.

Most states act in either the best interests of themselves, or their leaders. The state will always view itself as 'good', so one country trying to impose a morality onto another will never work. What CAN be imposed on another country is force, and what can be even more effective than force is the threat of force. I've said before that Bush was one of the only US leaders that Hussein actually feared. This was a much better situation than what Clinton did by backing down when push came to shove.

We also have a responsibility to be consistent. Bush and Hussein faced off, and Hussein blinked. A lot. At that point all we needed to do was keep pressure on him. Waltz talks about each nation seeking it's own survival. Hussein was interested in his own survival and power. Hussein ultimately had no choice but to back down, thinking he was ensuring his own survival. The next country we face will not back down because they know that it will not do them any good. The only hope they have is to rile up their populations and fight a long protracted war that we cannot afford, and that is exactly what Iran is currently doing.

Oh, check out the Powell Doctrine for my rules of engagement.

Steve

*On a historical note, if France and England had gone to war with Germany earlier than they did there would have been a better chance of them losing as they were even less prepared.