Well, so now it looks like we're going into Iran. Bush calls the idea "ridiculous," but admits he won't rule out any possibility. Scott Ritter says secret orders have already been signed to begin bombing in June. Only time will tell, of course, but Scott was right about Iraq not having WMDs, so he has at least a modicum of credibility.

On the subject of an impending Iran invasion, a "Matt" posted the following question to the News Hounds← discussion group the other day: "Why would helping the people of Iran throw off the mullahs be a bad thing?" This, plus the whole Iraq adventure, has me thinking about the nature of regime change and whether it can be legitimately effected by forces external to a country.

Consider this:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In case you don't recognize that passage, it's from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. To me, the key consideration here is that overthrowing an abusive government is, as the Founding Fathers so wisely recognized, the right of the people and of no other party. When the people of a nation have had enough of their government, they have the right to alter or abolish it.

Why have US forces in Iraq not been celebrated with parades of flowers or "greeted as liberators," as so famously predicted by Dick Cheney? It is simply because, no mater how despotic the government of Saddam Hussein was, the Iraqi people had not yet reached the point where they were willing to overthrow it. Without the spark of revolution within the country, any external force would necessarily be considered a hostile invader.