[Cerek]

I seriously doubt Bush will start any more wars. First of all, it will take most of his last term (if not ALL of it), to get Iraq stable enough to remove our troops completely.

Which leads to the second reason he won't start another war - we simply don't have the manpower available.

The final reason he want start another war is the fact that he won't need to. The fact that he DID start the Iraq War (despite opposition from the U.N.) showed the other countries in the Middle East (and North Korea) that Bush WILL go to war if he thinks he has to. Sometimes the "implied threat" of military might is not enough to convince enemies to negotiate with you...because they don't really believe you'll actually USE that military might. Sometimes you have to give a show of force to prove that you are willing to use your military if necessary.

Now, while many consider the "need" to use the military highly debatable (at best), the benefits for future negotions (or quelling future threats) cannot be denied.

In the late 80's, Muammar Qaddafi was the one spouting off about the evil Americans and that he would bring the fight to us, etc etc. Reagan didn't send the full military might against Libya, he just had airstrikes made on Qaddaffi's known residences. Suprisingly enough, the "threats" from Qaddaffi stopped immediately and he hasn't been heard from very much since.

This "show of force" will reap future benefits, though it might be weakened a bit if the Democrats win the Oval Office in 2008. Not slamming the Dems, it's just that they have historically been VERY reluctant to use ANY force - even when the situation SCREAMED for it.

Osama bin Laden orchestrated far more attacks against American troops and embassies during Clinton's Administration, but Clinton didn't make any serious effort to capture or kill him. In fact, the only time he responded at all was during the height of "Lewinsky Gate", and many people feel that was just a case of "Wag the Dog" in order to divert attention from his personal problems.

To his credit, I don't feel the American public would have supported a campaign against Bin Laden under Clinton the way they did for Bush. It took an event with the magnitude of 9/11 to get the public support needed for the campaign Bush launched against Bin Laden. So I don't "fault" Clinton completely for his lack of initiative against him, althought I feel he could have been a little more agressive in his efforts.