Europe's strength has come primarily from the United States shouldering the burden of their common defense for over 60 years.
Jean Francois Carry notwithstanding, there is a trend toward isolationism in the US. The current isolationist trend is founded in the "cut & run" from Iraq brigades.
The looming isolationist trend will rear its head in 2009, should a Democrat President take office. The tendency for Democrats is to involve our military forces in humanitarian missions, such as Africa, or in missions not tied to our national security interests, such as Bosnia.
As we speak, Democrats are painting themselves into a corner on the use of military force. They will not be able to make a case for such deployments for at least 10 years after we have left Iraq, assuming that our drawdown will commence within 18 months. Based on their oft-stated goals to "redeploy" from Iraq, Democrats should fully describe their definition of a "vital national security interest."
The rest of the world, particularly Europe, will rue the day they did not join with us in Iraq, and other battles in the War on Terror. Our younger generations have no recollection of the Cold War, and are not nearly as likely to come to the aid of Europe, Taiwan, or the rest of our allies. Let's face it: the money will not be there, as Social Security will collapse under the weight of retiring Baby Boomers.
One part of me loathes the thought of the US becoming isolationist, while another part relishes the thought of sending a big "FU" to those countries that have fought us diplomatically in the UN, and the War on Terror.
I'm European, but I tell you : Europeans don't deserve a second chance. Hundreds of thousands US soldiers went to their rescue in 41-45, but Europeans used this help to build utopian socialist societies, without any base of defense or morale. This continent is lost.
What I'm telling you is that going in the Middle East is in your interest.
The REAL Vietnam era was 1992-2001, when the US were stroke and didn't answer. They were so weak and so unaware of what was going on over there that they let Saddam and Al-Quaeda strengthen.
Now the US have to stand firm and brave in the Middle East, especially in order to prevent a massive global clash of civilizations. Someday we all dream of a massive bomb destroying Teheran and finish the problem radically. But this strategy will cost the lives of millions, and lead the world to a greater disaster than WWII.
Bush's strategy is to use the defaults of the Middle East jihadists against them. People of the Middle East are oppressed ? Let advocate a policy to free them. They are frustrated and want to join global jihadism ? Let open their societies. They are uneducated ? Let advocate freedom of speech and education.
This strategy seems to be naive for "realists" like Bush 41 and Baker & Co. Thus, all realists have done a terrible job in the Middle East, and the "isolationnist" policy of Bush senior-Clinon lead to this : Arafat gets his terrorist state, Saddam was spared and continued to run his country, Saudi Arabia continued to send anti-american propaganda, Iran's islamic theocracy was saved, the US military forces were stroke several times without any real answer, and finnally, the war Clinton didn't want to lauch in Iraq and Afghanistan was lauched BY terrorists in the US.
Realism and isolationnism failed. They always fail. The Cold War was not won by isolationnism, rather by agressive economic and military measures taken by Reagan. Bush leads the charge today in a different war : an ideological one, against the oldest and most spread totalitarism of the history of mankind. Not much WMDS, in comparison of communists, but a lot of people ready to blow up (Dr. Pipes estimated the global jihad fighters as around 200 millions people, their ideological supporters are about one billion).
The fight in the heart of islam and not the fight against islam. What do you chose ? Bush strategy chose the first solution, and is promoting freedom in the Middle East.
I think Bush is right. To promote the good against evil is always an advantage in a ideological war.