Point to you "talk[ing] about history" (not being sarcastic, I just get a bit riled up after hearing the various "The bomb was a mistake"-arguments. I think it's easy to criticize the decision long after the fact than it is when you're actually living it.).___The American Empire is not going to crumble in one night (well, probably won't crumble after one night. Like Harry in "Dumb and Dumber," I believe there's always a chance for anything, no matter how small it might be). I do believe, though, that fringe radical extremists (both from the extreme left and the extreme right) slowly chip away at the foundation, making the decline much more gradual. When we collapse, or at least lose our power in the world, it won't be because of a single event. It will be because of a series of events over the course of decades, if not centuries.___First of all, I do believe a collision of cultures that was bound to happen, long before "W" ever stepped into office. It was simply a matter of time before it spilled over. You cannot continue to go decades with various skimishes and conflicts between two completely separate cultures and not expect it to one day reach a breaking point. The problem, however, is dealing with the situation.___If I were president after 9/11 (because, really, that's the point where the Executive had a chance to start a clean slate in the Middle East and write a new agenda in the region), this is what I would have done: The invasion of Afghanistan was the correct thing to do. I would have used a massive force movement, though, preventing anyone from entering or exiting the country, sealing the borders (and, to make clear, this wouldn't have been the U.S.-Mexican border. Nobody would be coming in or leaving, even if it meant using lethal force on those doing so). Building the Afghani infrastructure would have been the first priority. Now, I know there are a great deal of questions regarding the intelligence prior to the conflict in Iraq. It's not, however, clear-cut. I don't think this conflict was drawn up in a dark room in Crawford. U.S. policy since the first Bush has maintained that Iraq was hiding weapons. If this wasn't true the Clinton administration would have either backed away from this policy or debunked it. Neither happened. Regardless, the problem of Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with, if only to end the Cat and Mouse game. Assassination, in my opinion, would have been the best option. I know the capabilities of our intelligence agencies is not nearly what Jack Ryan has to work with but I would hope they are at least capable of carrying out a covert assassination and pinning it on a rival faction within the country. By eliminating Hussein (and, if possible, his sons) we could have potentially sent the country into chaos, which would have prompted the UN to request peacekeeping forces be sent in to stabilize the situation.___I think by using these two options far less American dollars and American lives would have been spent.___And then finally, to deal with other countries in the region, I would have ordered all private interests exit the region immediately and, in front of the American people, told them we are setting an immediate timetable for eliminating Middle Eastern crude. Before oil was discovered in the Middle East, these countries had no influence. It's time we pulled out and let them choke on themselves. Would we have to make sacrifices in the short term? Sure. In the long run, however, these countries would have to come back to the bargaining table without leverage (assuming they too didn't plunge into civil conflict). Even if they did fall into civil conflict, it would be for the better. The hope would be that a more modern (re: Western) government would emerge.___It would have sent a clear signal that we will deal quickly with any threat to our nation.___Of course, back in '91, we should have shamed the international community into coming to Baghdad with us. The opportunity was ripe.