Given that the United States has the dominant world-wide military position, and given that the outcomes of drastic international action are often unpredictable but favor the powerful, it seems reasonable to act decisively and trust that your powerful initial position reaps rewards when the dust settles. This may seem like madness to some but if your goals are American empire and military and economic power are your tools, throwing the dice is correct even though the outcome is not clear.

The Bush administration is gambling on the large scale for a positive outcome but their specific actions are not approximate -- they are precise, premeditated, violent, and have caused widespread chaos. Estimates vary but it is safe to say that 90,000 humans lost their lives in the invasion and the subsequent resistance and civil conflict in Iraq. In exchange for what? A US-friendly regime in Iraq and the middle east? That is an unlikely wager at this point. An irreversible catalyst for neocon leadership both domestic and international? Perhaps a success, it's hard to say.

As hard as it may be to measure the effects of the Iraq invasion, understanding the neocons' rationale is quite simple; they will tell you that they simply want to build an American empire through military might. Whole-world American dominance is unlikely, but a multiplication of American power seems possible and the middle-east is a lynch pin.

But what of the alternative worldview in which American empire is unnecessary and obstructs the path to peace? It is reasonable to believe modern technical and social advances will solve many important world problems in our time. Hunger can be all but banished by advances in agriculture and distribution, natural resources will soon cease to be wantonly consumed when alternative energy sources make it unnecessary, inefficient and unjust regimes will fall due to competition with freer governments abetted by increased civilian power granted by communications technology, the world's environment will gradually improve as we recognize the worst injuries we cause and take steps to avoid them. Like a military campaign, solving these problems is not entirely understood but a positive outcome of some sort is so likely that the issue is hardly worth debating.

What sort of world would it be if the neocons had not chosen the path of empire? We would have an inactive American military, a seven-year span of world events free of the Iraq tragedy, and an American economy unsaddled by the 750 billion dollar cost of war. Would we face problems from other aggressor states? Would the Iraqi regime have grown worse? Would the middle-east be a source of greater instability in world events? One certainty is that America has spent it's resources on military conquest and thus abandoned other courses.

American leaders will face an ongoing choice between aggressive war with a dominant military and a humble multi-nationalism. Choosing peace in a sense abdicates the American role as world leader. As self-sacrificing and unexciting as this may seem compared to glorious military world-dominance, we have to consider whether it is thereby a happier, more peaceful, more progressive world. This is the real question for neocon and others alike.

We have witnessed a neocon-dominated administration seeking to mint American empire by means of warfare. It is not easy to believe that it will change in a McCain presidency. If Obama is elected however, we will likely see a turn toward the policy of "studying reality" mentioned in the above quote. Conceivably, we could even witness a turn-about toward the opposite of empire building: the use of American power to quell the possibility of future empires and in so doing drawing a line in the sand that says "today's world is our future, let us improve it.