As far as the protection of the U.S.A. is concerned, picking up the pieces is unimportant. What we should do is overthrow a bad regime, and if it is replaced by another bad regime, overthrow that one. Keep shaking the dice, and eventually we will come up with an adequate regime in place. Since almost all dictatorships refrain from encouraging terrorism, our odds are pretty good that a randomly selected regime will be fine as far as American homeland security is concerned. The security of people in Korea, Syria, Persia and so forth is a different matter, but dealing with tyranny generally is a much bigger project, and would require overthrowing the regimes of China, Canada, and perhaps the United States Supreme Court too.

Here are a few choice selection from Steyn:

I was up on the Iraq-Syria frontier in May and, although its certainly porous, porousness cuts both ways. It would concentrate Assad�s mind wonderfully if the Americans were to forget where exactly the line runs occasionally and answer Syria�s provocations by accidentally bombing appropriate targets on Junior�s side of the border.

...

CNN had a headline this week: �Compromise Struck On Iran�s Nukes.� Not all of us are reassured to see the words �Iran�, �nukes� and �compromise� in the same sentence.

...

The war on terror is, in one sense, a Saudi civil war that the royal family has successfully exported to the rest of the world. The rest of the world should see that it�s repatriated.

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.