The US should not invade Iraq. That war will likely be long, difficult, and costly (both in terms of money and human life). Saddam Hussein likely does not have the capacity or will to develop WMDs, we can take our chances with him at the helm of Iraq. Rather, the US should try to develop closer ties with these potentially dangerous states, while encouraging strong safeguards and security measures for WMDs globally.
The American public thinks you are too weak on terrorism. In the public view, you are not eliminating the terrorists' safe haven in Afghanistan nor are you effectively constraining despotic ruler Saddam Hussein from pursuing WMDs. That being said, American forward presence in the Middle East reassures the public somewhat that an intervention will occur if the situation deteriorates further.
Now that you have made short-term decisions regarding terrorism, you must establish a long-term strategy for dealing with failed and weak states. The best way to prevent the next 9/11 would be to make sure central governments retain sovereignty. Instability and deplorable living conditions foster radicalization and the rise of terrorist groups.
|Responsibility to Protect||When a state poses an international threat to security or an internal threat to the freedom of its people, the international community has the responsibility to intervene and protect human rights and international security. This choice requires a robust forward presence of the US military. Additionally, you, as President Bush, would alert the international community to an American commitment to protecting ideals of human rights and security.|
|International assistance||Intervention should be avoided at all costs. The US should help weak and failed states gain legitimacy through foreign aid and other forms of assistance. This choice requires the US to increase its foreign aid and assistance programs. In truly dire situations, the US would support UN-led peacekeeping interventions but would still condemn outright unilateral military intervention.|