Robert Jervis, "The Compulsive Empire" (Essential Readings in World Politics, Karen Mingst and Jack Snyder, 2nd Edition.)

"Put simply, power is checked most effectively by counterbalancing power, and a state that is not subject to severe external pressures tends to feel few restraints at all. Spreading democracy and liveralism throughout the world has always been a U.S. goal, but having so much power makes this aim a more realistic one. It is not as if the Middle East has suddenly become more fertile ground for American ideals; it's just that the United States now has the means to impose its will. The quick US triumph in Afghanistan contributed to the expansion of Washington's goals, and the easy military victory in Iraq will encourage an even broader agenda. The Bush administration is not worried it's new doctrine of preventative war will set a precedent for other nations, because US officials believe the dictates that apply to others do not bind the United States. This is not a double standard, they argue; it is realistic leadership." (emphasis added)

The United States is criticized for intervening all over the place in order to advance their own interests. I contend that the United States, in order to do any good in this world, must marry humanitarian interest to the realism of world and domestic politics. If President Bush capitalizes on public outrage against terrorism to meet humanitarian goals in Iraq and finish a job that was left undone after the Persian Gulf war, then so be it. Even humanitarians have to be opportunists.

Heres another thought. When you need someone to get the job done, someone you can trust, you turn to your friends. Of course, if those friends happen to be old colleagues, such as Halliburton & Co, well, that's immediately construed as dirty politics. So this begs the question: I know nothing about VP Cheney and the Halliburton scandal. But isn't it a bit odd to immediately assume wrongdoing in the awarding of contracts? Maybe Halliburton happen to be the men for the job...