The U.S. victory over what was left of the Iraqi armed forces was predictably quick and relatively painless. The fact that this longer war produced fewer casualties than its less ambitious 1991 predecessor is a testament to the improvements in the equipment and technique employed by the U.S. military in the last decade. It is also a statement on the depth of the decimation of the Iraqi military and social structure 12 long years of sanctions had wrought.
But as the war winds down, and neither Saddam nor weapons of mass destruction surface, the impact of this victory on America’s stature in the newly-shaken world order grows ever more dangerous.
We annoyed our friends by charging in. We promised that the ends would justify the means once Saddam was dead and his weapons exposed. Now that our grasp has clearly exceeded our reach, and reality doesn’t match our rhetoric, those who were formerly just annoyed have good reason to be downright upset.
The Bush administration’s arrogant and dismissive treatment of many of America’s oldest allies in the months leading up to the war, its refusal to play straight with the United Nations, the manner in which it used the time bought by weapons inspections to assemble our invasion force in Saudi Arabia – these actions and more have put America’s post-Cold War place as the world’s benevolent leader in a perilous position.
The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes (which we used to call immoral sneak attacks back when they happened to us) creates an environment where any nation may suddenly find itself on the business end of an American ultimatum for failing to live up to Bush’s amorphous “with us or against us” standard.
Sure, we toppled a minor dictator and crushed his tin soldier army, supposedly bringing freedom to millions of Iraqis (and their millions of barrels of oil), but in the long run how will our unprovoked attack impact our relations with the rest of the world – including the established Western powers we should be looking to as friends and partners?
No nation is an island (metaphorically speaking, anyway). No nation can go it alone against the wishes of most of the rest of humanity and maintain any semblance of moral authority.
Sure, we have the military might to topple any government in the world and the creativity necessary to come up with spurious reasons to do so. But is such arrogant, jingoistic militarism really the type of policy that America should follow?
We didn’t need much in the way of help to win the war in Iraq, but we will if we’re to win the peace. Saddam Hussein’s fall may make the Middle East a marginally safer place, but the rise of an America unhindered by even the concerns of friends could make the world far more dangerous.
