[theapportioner]

I've been beating this horse for a while, but here goes again:

The doctrine of pre-emptive "regime change" absolutely, positively needs to account for the post-war scenarios. If the assessment suggests that the country attacked is going to be worse off, both for the citizens of that country AND for the United States, then "regime change" is absolutely, positively unjustifiable. If, however, you are able to show that the citizens and the US will be better off (and empty statements about liberation or destroying the unproven WMD certainly do not count), then the pro-"regime change"'s argument is that much stronger, that much more justifiable morally. Hell, I would even be swayed. Central to the issue is "what government" and "how likely". These questions weren't even asked during the buildup towards war, let alone answered.

A surgeon may not be able to save every patient's life, or account for all possible consequences. BUT, she doesn't go cutting things up without having an idea of what to do, what the side-effects may be, how to minimize the side-effects. AND, if the procedure is too dangerous, knowing to seek alternative avenues of treatment wherever available. We should be past the age when trepanning and bloodletting were deemed acceptable medical procedures.