To begin with, it is not possible; the US is not self-sufficient, and even where it is, there are many benefits to trade, diplomacy, international alliances and other intercourse with the world community. And of course, conducting an independent and non-confrontational foreign policy does not rule out self-defense, or the defense of allies. Likewise, the world is full of bullies that sometimes have to be taught a lesson, but in these cases America should be guided by international bodies and opinion and cooperation, as it was in the Balkans. We do not have any right to interfere in anyone's business unilaterally, no matter how evil they are to their own people. After all, we didn't exactly applaud the Soviets when they took on the Taliban.

This is why I originally supported the invasion of Iraq, I felt it was a legitimate case of pre-emptive self-defense. As soon as we had determined otherwise, we needed to leave immediately, or after a decent period of transition, say the first election.

The real motivation for the Bush invasion, the creation of a puppet state in the middle east, would certainly have been very advantageous for US security, but it would never have justified our intervention on it's own, neither at home or abroad. Now that even that has failed, I can see no further reason to be there. This has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda, the war on terror, the overthrowing of a dictator, stability in the region, establishment of free-enterprise democracy or any of the other lame excuses that started cropping up only AFTER we failed to find any WMDs.

The Rumsfeld/Cheney legacy is a world where there is once again a precedent for a major power to invade another country simply because it feels it is worthwhile. I'm not so naive as to think that that wouldn't happen again anyway, but I have a feeling this adventure will come back to haunt us again and again.