In the scope of American politics, the foreign policy of the Bush administration is not radical. Foreign interventions were a regular occurrence in Washington except for a brief deviation during the Clinton presidency. This deviation did not mean that the Clinton administration was made up of pacifists, but rather that there was no need to use the military to enforce world order; there was no real opposition to be stopped. 

With the fall of the Soviet Union, capitalism was the remaining economic system. Clinton's success of relative peace was only because he did not have to protect capitalism against any militant opposition. With the idea of communism discredited, the entire world wanted into the U.S. system. And when the few threats did occur, Clinton met them with a brutal fist. 

The Bush administration continued these less forceful policies until an actual militant threat against the global economic system materialized. It materialized in the destruction of capitalism's economic symbols - the World Trade Center - along with the military wing that protects the globe from any threats to the current world order. Amazingly, the first real threat to globalization since the fall of the Soviet Union came in a surreal, Hollywood-esque attack. 

The opposition groups who planned September 11 were from traditional societies who rejected the idea of globalization; they did not want their way of life to be destroyed by this global culture of McDonalds, Starbucks, and the allure of wealth. They feared that once their society experienced the seduction of globalization, their historical culture would be thrown away. 

To the global elite, a warning to these opposition groups had to be sent. Due to the extremity of the September 11 attacks, a society that was so preoccupied with wealth suddenly had a reality check. Americans, and other wealthy peoples of the world, did not want to see their way of life destroyed either. Moreover, they had no idea that their government was pushing an agenda that was destroying the way of life for many cultures around the world. When the Bush administration played these fears, by making such ridiculous simplified claims as, "They hate our freedoms," Americans and other Westerners overlooked the complexities and put their support into the American government. 

The Bush administration then used this window of opportunity to use the military might of the United States to further globalization. Not only did they have support to attack the opposition, but also to spread American military influence all over the entire world; hence, the term "War on Terror." 

Military bases were built in Central Asia, giving the U.S. more control in the area. With more control, the Bush administration is hoping to stabilize the region to increase investment possibilities. This Caspian area is filled with large oil and gas deposits. Further, it limits Russia's economic control over the region at a time when Russia is too weak to raise a finger. 

However, the window of opportunity is closing. Many Europeans feel that the Bush administration is threatening global stability by further alienating groups who already are defensive against globalization. Europeans fear that with further alienation, more of these groups will become militant and threaten increased instability. 

Russia and Iran simply fear the actions of the Bush administration because they are seeing their regional control disappear quite quickly. The Bush administration has been giving support to former Soviet republic governments such as Georgia, a country that has been in conflict with Russia. 

Despite the growing opposition against U.S. expansion, the Bush administration, made up of politicians who spent their lives using the military to compete with the Soviet Union, is hoping to use this window to its max. They are hoping to lead a quick attack against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This attack would follow the Afghanistan model with a U.S. friendly government being established along with many U.S. military bases around the country to add a possibly permanent influence. 

Without Hussein, the U.N. sanctions against Iraq will be lifted and Iraq's oil spigot will flow into the world market. With the U.S. protecting the new government, lucrative oil drilling concessions would be granted to U.S. corporations rather than other regional corporations. The Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group hoping to be installed as the new government of Iraq, has been courting U.S. oil companies hoping they'll put pressure on the Bush administration to execute the invasion plan. This is why Hussein is offering cheap, generous oil deals to Russia and other members of the United Nations Security Council. 

This leaves a couple possible outcomes. 

If the Bush administration is successful, and quickly removes Hussein from power along with setting up a U.S. friendly government, the new flow of oil would see prices drop down to $15.00 to $20.00 a barrel from the current $25.00 to $30.00. This will greatly help the global economy in nations that don't depend on their oil exports for growth. In the eyes of the Bush administration, and other wealthy nations, oil exporting countries are expendable; they will be used for their resources. 

The reason for the public government outcry in Europe against this invasion is because many leaders don't think the Bush administration's plans will go as expected. If the U.S. military fails to remove Hussein, sanctions will remain and oil will not be released to the market. The failed invasion will create instability in Middle East oil prices and the price per barrel could easily shoot over $40.00. This would send the already hurting economy reeling. 

Furthermore, such an invasion could inflame the Islamic world creating more militants ready to attack the global economy. We have seen the economic devastation caused by one attack in Bali, Indonesia; their tourism trade has plummeted. 

Oil exporting countries such as Russia do not mind the instability or the higher oil prices that currently exist. With the Middle East having unstable prices, more countries will seek oil from alternative sources such as Russia. 

That is the dilemma. Whether the invasion takes place depends on how long the Bush administration thinks an attack on Iraq will be more beneficial to the U.S. economy; if the U.S. economy improves, then the world economy should follow. 

Unfortunately, many civilians will be caught in the middle of this greed. But innocents have never been a concern for the global elite or for the opposition groups. Innocents are merely looked at as the disposable masses.