If US policy towards the Middle East is liberalism gone mad, how can Guantanamo Bay, rendition (to countries with authoritarian regimes for the purpose of torture) and Abu Gharab (the jail) be explained? Torture and indefinite detention without trial and no specified charges are not features of liberalism. Bush himself prior to his initial electoral victory spoke a lot more about curbing individual freedom than enhancing it. Perhaps he was just a late convert. Or perhaps the words relating to liberty which have been used to legitimise US policy in recent years have more to do with rhetorical flourish than reality. My understanding is that Rumsfeld supported light troop numbers in the initial invasion because he was concerned about overstretch: a classic problem for empire maintanance. Their military ambitions at the time may have stretched beyond Iraq. Whatever the truth of the matter: Given the current state of the US, I don't think they will be engaging in too much military adventurism in the immediate future.
