Maybe I misunderstand the nuances, but seems to me there's something wonky about either perspective. On DP's -- surely motivation is suspect grounds on which to judge the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of wars and invasions, and I'd be willing to admit that there's likely a mix of all in Washington's decision-making, if only on the grounds that no one would admit to having imperial intentions, etc. but only the best of intentions. BS's, on the other hand, seems to assume that the US is the king-maker and king-unmaker, an imperial mindset. We, non-Americans, are not equipment, machinery, or some other inanimate objects; it's not a case of 'you broke it, you fix it'; more so, when the fixing of it causes even more breakage and destruction.
OK, so that may well come down to a question of the modalities of intervention. It strikes me that there's much implicit/unconscious assumption that the modalities of intervention available to the US state are reserved only to the US state -- even down to the idea that 'good' can come out of 'bad', even when there's condemnation of that initial 'bad'. What would Hitchens say if some group were to get the idea that it's fine to conduct a lightning strike to capture Kissinger for trial, based on the evidence that he's mounted? What would we then say -- argue that the trial should be by an international tribunal, etc.? Laughable, right? Can this asymmetry of thought be used as a definition of the imperial mind-set?
kj khoo