It seems that you take the internation rule of law and order as the norm and point of reference, and ask "howcome that some people do not adhere to this universal principle?" That question implies a certain range of answers that imply that behavior in question is evil - it varies only in the degree.
I come from a more Hobbesian perspective and assume that war of all against all is the natural state, so the question I ask "howcome some people do not engage in acts of such a war, but instead show some restraint or even cooperation?" That question also implies a certain range of answers that imply that behavior showing any restraint or cooperation is essentially good - the only issue is - to what degree?
You have to admit that given its enormous military and economic power, the US decision-makers showed remarkable contraint in using that power - for if they decided to act trully unilaterarily in a "homo homini lupus" fashon they could easily unleash that power and face little consequences of so doing. I can see a bunch of detractors pointing out that US intervened militarily more frequently than other countries - but if we account for th efact that most other countries have no or verly limited capacity to project power outside their borders - this lower number of military intervention is most like the result of the lack of opportunity than less belligerent nature of the countries in question.
Even in the domestic affairs - such as the treatment of assorted armed crackpots like Branch Davidians or MOVE - the restraint on the use of lethal force was quite high (e.g. vis a vis the recent Moscow operation).
So what I see is that countries like the US or Israel generally showing remarkable restraint in the use of power (as compared to what they could have done) and easing those restraints a bit here and there. That is hardly a cause for alarm and all those slippery slope scenarios. I am not loosing any sleep over the thought that government jackbooted thugs are going to kick in my door at night any time soon.
Wojtek