Max Boot's op-ed in today's Washington Times calls for the world community to take seriously the need to deal with failed states such as Haiti. His strategy calls for both regional and global tactics: Australia should (and has) intervened in East Timor and the Solomon Islands, for example; and NATO and the UN have intervened in hotspots, although their record is spotty at best. Boot's faith in nation states, which form the basis not only for world order but for democratic rule, strikes me as far better placed than his belief that the UN can form a credible fighting force modeled on, he says, the French Foreign Legion. But his understanding that the US alone cannot and should not intervene in every failed nation worldwide is on the spot. Regional intervention, both military and non-military and most often with American logistical and diplomatic support, could be the best route. But even this presupposes that such actions won't become old fashioned wars of aggression under the mantra of the search for global stability. As usual, Boot has raised important problems and solutions that no op-ed can adequately address.

Today in Taiwan an estimated 2.5 million people joined together in opposition to China's bullying and positioning of ballistic missiles at the small island. If this is how they treat their fellow countrymen, just think what they might have pointed at us or South Korea or Japan; you get the drift.

The anti-China demonstration is executed with class and dignity, just click on the photos included in the article above. Perhaps no nation in the world, with the exception of Israel, is so continually threatened. These are a brave and beautiful people.

That's the latest word from Saudi Arabia, which has issued new travel guidelines for tourists. New York Congressman Anthony Weiner said yesterday that the Saudi rules prohibit "Jewish People," anyone with an Israeli passport, and anyone whose passport bears an Israeli stamp from being granted a visa.

Substitute any other ethnic or religious group for "Jewish People" and imagine the international outrage that would ensue. But that's just fine with the career bureaucrats at State.

Update: Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today is reporting that the Saudis have rescinded their policy of denying Jews visas to visit the Kingdom. Prohibitions against Israelis or anyone with an Israeli stamp on his passport, however, remain in effect.

The Asian Wall Street Journal writes it's time for regime change in North Korea. Enough said.

Victor Davis Hanson argues persuasively that critics of President Bush's policies of preemption and so-called unilateralism have bastardized the terms in order to attack America's post-9-11 defense posture. By citing Thucydides as a source on preemption, he proves it has a long pedigree. Hanson once again shows how ineffective such arguments would be against Bush if only more citizens, including journalists, knew a bit of history.

It's pretty clear from the postings thus far, that I am supportive of the Bush Administration's efforts towards the establishment of democratic governments in the Middle East and elsewhere. One unique take -- that in some ways differs from my approach on how to deal with these questions -- comes from one Victor Eremita in his blog called Obedient Hound, whatever the heck that means.

Victor comes at promoting democracy from the Left and particularly from a Christian perspective musing about how we can change governments from the inside through non-violent, peaceful resistance, which no matter whether Democrat or Republican we can all agree is the superior method. His musings are worth consideration and certainly better than what John Kerry is barfing up as foreign policy -- which is tantamount to nothing and at best capitulation to Kofi Annan.

University of Virginia Law Professor Jeffrey O'Connell and I penned "Bringing the Rule of Law to Lawyers," which appears on the Hudson Institute's American Outlook Today.

Professor O'Connell and I are working on an initiative to make the legal process easier for everyday citizens so that they obtain relief faster and easier.

One of the reasons why President Bush is facing a more difficult election than he should be is because of the inconsistency of his administration's policy positions. Just a couple of weeks ago on Meet the Press, Bush stated "And the best way to secure America for the long term is to promote freedom and a free society and to encourage democracy."

So, why did the United States refuse to send troops to Haiti, as reported by today's New York Times? Secretary of State Colin Powell said "There is, frankly, no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces to put down the violence that we are seeing. What we want to do right now is find a political solution, and then there are willing nations that would come forward with a police presence to implement the political agreement that the sides come to." Yeah, the willing nations are Canada and France -- two countries who spat in our face when we made the decision to go to Iraq? Maybe, they are doing the U.S. favor, as it is true that our troops are stretched thin.

Yet, Bush does himself no favors, especially to human rights-minded independents and Blacks and Hispanics (both who care about Haiti) in the upcoming election, by supporting military interventions half a world way and then refusing to lend aid right in our backyard. If President Bush is going to have a policy of nation-building (or as I prefer to call it democracy-building), then he needs to be consistent about it and make it policy everywhere. Otherwise, he'll continue to fall prey to those criticisms that the war in Iraq was pre-planned revenge for Saddam trying to murder his father, or worse yet we did it just for the oil.

A couple of recent reports in the New York Times (here and here) show that the region's strong men are at least making noise about political reform. Coupled with recent news of Lybia's opening to arms inspections and a freer economy, we're seeing the fruits of the administration's efforts to bring reform to Arab lands.

In the Washington Times appeared a fascinating article providing important insight into the minds of the Hispanic electorate.

Encouragingly, the article notes that Hispanics are less inclined towards voting party over principle. This means that both the Democratic and Republican parties will be forced to spend significant resources and dollars for outreach to Hispanics, thereby getting them more involved in the political process and potentially aiding the assimilation of America's largest minority group.

Yesterday's Washington Post featured an article detailing what could be an incredible development in United States foreign policy -- a move by the Bush Administration to implement a Helsinki approach in the Middle East.

As Mark Palmer, Ambassador to Hungary when the Berlin Wall collapsed, reveals in his groundbreaking book, Breaking the Real Axis of Evil, it was the creation of Helsinki Watch groups holding the Soviet Bloc's butts to the proverbial fire on their commitment to human rights made in the Helsinki Accords that helped to win the Cold War.

A recent defector from North Korea reports that the regime uses gas chambers to murder dissidents and their families, sometimes unto the third generation in an effort to wipe out "bad blood." As with all enterprises of mass murder, this one is made possible by the ability of the regime to dehumanize its victims. The defector reports:

"At the time I felt that they thoroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea were their fault; that we were poor, divided and not making progress as a country. It would be a total lie for me to say I feel sympathetic about the children dying such a painful death. Under the society and the regime I was in at the time, I only felt that they were the enemies. So I felt no sympathy or pity for them at all."

Surely any negotiations with such a regime must aim toward the overthrow of Kim Jong-il, not merely another attempt to reign him in.