When no action is the best action

One of the big claims is that we can't do nothing in Iraq/Iran/latest target country) "remember what happened in WWII!"

But, is that the best model for every situation? Probably not.

For example, Bush is in Vietnam this week. Looks like Viet Nam is ready to join the capitalist world, and if the few Vietnamese people I now are any indication, watch out!

And we didn't have to fire a shot and it cost us no lives or money.

Here is an article that provides a similar point: Winning by Losing

I also note Spain as another example. Spain is now a democracy, after many years under a dictatorship. Again, it appears no action was the right decision. We didn't need to "liberate" Spain.

There are at least two examples of action failing as well. First, Cuba has been a disaster. Although we have not invaded, we probably could have made more progress by engaging them rather than the embargo we have had in place for so many years.

The second example is North Korea. If the US was not present in South Korea it is highly likely that some reconciliation would have been achieved by now. North Korea would probably be in a similar situation to Viet Nam, trying to join the capitalist world. Our presence in South Korea has probably blocked this natural evolution.

Will our presence in Iraq help resolve matters there, or are we a source of the problem? Based on events so far, it is clearly the later.

And we have paid dearly to make this mistake, and we continue to do so.