There they go again. Critiquing wavering liberal hawks, David Adensik asks:

... why have Kevin and Matt become so worried in the immediate aftermath of the speech in which Bush went further than ever before in spelling out his commitment to promoting democracy throughout the Middle East? (Not just in Iraq, a point Kieran Healy seems to miss.)

While talking the talk is not the same as walking the walk, one has to realize two things about Bush's speech. The first is a general point which relates to all political speeches: When polticians make explicit promises, they can either be punished for breaking them or forced to live up to them. ...

So, imposing democracy (strange concept, that) is clearly, in David's view, a feasible plan, within the constraints of America's available resources. But on the other hand...

While Kevin thinks containment "could be made to work for several more years", I doubt it. The UN can't keep its inspectors on the ground forever, perhaps a year at best. Eventually, they will either have to declare that Saddam is lying or give Saddam a clean bill of health and just go home.

So it's completely impossible to keep inspectors in the country to verify continued compliance, during the same period in which we would otherwise have a full-scale army of occupation in place to run the country for a several-year reconstruction project. Say what?