Submitted by Brian H, May 19, 2007 06:01

It does seem to be the simpler hypothesis, doesn't it, that America is far more interventionist than the USSR was? (Putin's neo-nationalist police state is still in its early days, so we don't have enough data to judge it in this respect yet.) The remaining question to be considered, if we want to make good predictions, is: "What motivates the interventions?" Oil security is part of it, but is it sufficient to explain all? It hardly works to deal with the support for Israel, and requires dilution with assumption about very far-sighted and patient approaches to payback to justify the expense of toppling Saddam in the hope of installing/inspiring a more friendly regime.

I think one has to at the very least include an effort to place a genuine pro-Western ally with at least a reasonably representative and non-jihadist government in between Iran's foaming-at-the-mouth Shiite expansionism and KSA's massively subversive covert Wahabbism. The payoff for getting a genuine full-blown ally with a sane government in the midst of that lot would be so high that it looks like a worthwhile strategy however long the odds were. (Which explains why the US is likely to hold on to its link with the resurgent Kurdistan for dear life, IMO.)

As for the idealistic and human rights defense motives, are they necessary to round out the minimal motives mix? Or does Occam require that they be slashed away?

I think there's an essential role for them. It's necessary for the Americans to inspire themselves in order to stay involved and take hits over a long period of time, or even a medium one. The very odd thing is that the subgroups (parties are only part of these dividing lines) that claim to disdain such soft and squishy un-real-politik considerations in advance are the ones who get on board most strongly in the event, while the more left-wing idealists turn out to be too squeamish to actually be seen to mess around with the socio-religious/politico-economic choices of even declared enemies.

So at about this point, Occam's cuts get kind of ragged. The US is evidently not monolithic in its power-wielding and decision-making.

But in the end, it may well be that the US just can't live with itself if it doesn't try to do SOMETHING when the shit-slingers start taking ranging shots towards the fan.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.