Actually Ed, I would hope that whoever is President brainstorms possible scenarios like this instead of going into a situation with pre-conceived notions about cause and effect. Global relations is a complicated matter and the easy answers you keep coming up with are often invalidated by the examples of history.

By your examples the US should have entered WWII at the onset of Germany's expansionism instead of waiting until after Pearl Harbour.
That scenario fits the formula for preemptively taking on the bad guys before they harm you. Who knows? Maybe it would've ended WWII earlier had we done that but maybe it also would've put the country into a war they were unprepared for and the body bags coming back would've so repulsed the population that they stopped supporting it. Perhaps we would've moved a great deal of our Pacific fleet into the Atlantic and the attack on Pearl would've wiped out the remaining ships completely.

It's so funny how you guys attacked me for the scenario I came up with and yet, before Tom's question and the subsequent thought process, I had always assumed that the first Gulf War was justified. You guys really have to do some soul searching to find out why the hair on the back of your necks raises like it does when someone brainstorms and thinks a bit outside the box. I really think that in your hearts you truly know George Bush was a mistake and any criticism against him feels like a criticism against you. How absurd. I was a bit taken in by the guy as well with his promises of "compassionate conservatism" and the fact that he seemed to be well-liked and respected in Texas. The only thing that kept me from voting for the guy originally was that he seemed to have no plan to reduce our dependence on oil, an issue that is incredibly important to me.

Open you mind a little bit. It can be refreshing.