Log In  |  Register Now  
 Home | Syndication Services | Media Features | Research Center | Archive | Contributors | About Us

To receive emails containing headlines and highlights from The Globalist,
sign up here.



Topic

Companies

Culture

Development

Diplomacy

Economy

Environment

Finance

Health

History

Markets

Media

Music

Politics

Religion

Security

Sports

Technology

Women

Youth


Region

Africa

Asia-Pacific

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America


Globalist Bookshelf

Best Books of 2012

Best Books of 2011


Editorial Staff

Contributors

Jobs & Internships


Subscribers to The Globalist's premium services can log in here:

Username:

Password:

Forgot your password?



 

Order "Ethical Realism" here.

Globalist Bookshelf > Global Security
The Conflict in Iraq and U.S. Elites
 

By Anatol Lieven and John C. Hulsman | Tuesday, October 31, 2006
 

The failure in Iraq is not just one of the Bush Administration — but of much of the U.S. establishment which shared or acquiesced in those plans. With the strategy now in shambles, U.S. political elites are rudderless, argue Anatol Lieven and John C. Hulsman, authors of "Ethical Realism."


hat has failed in Iraq has been not just the strategy of the administration of George W. Bush — but a whole way of looking at the world.

America’s famous 12 aircraft carrier battle groups are not much use on the streets of Fallujah.
This consists of the beliefs that the United States is both so powerful and so obviously good that it has the ability to spread democracy throughout the world; that if necessary, this can be achieved through war; that this mission can also be made to advance particular U.S. national interests — and that this combination will naturally be supported by good people all over the world, irrespective of their own political traditions, national allegiances and national interests.

These beliefs are very widely and instinctively shared throughout the U.S. establishment — and both political parties. As a result, their failure in Iraq has so far led not to a new approach to international relations, but to a period of intellectual and political bewilderment.

Incompetent administration

This is now being succeeded by worrying indications of an emerging new bipartisan consensus, based essentially on the previous assumptions and myths.

Even after the debacle of Iraq, there is therefore at present no real opposition in the United States when it comes to foreign and security policy. The Democrats are bitterly, and rightly, critical of the monstrous incompetence displayed by the Bush Administration.

Defending democracy

But they do not themselves have an alternative strategy or philosophy to offer. And too often, they content themselves with offering similar messianic platitudes about American greatness and the transformative power of democracy.
What has failed in Iraq has been not just the strategy of the administration of George W. Bush — but a whole way of looking at the world.

Vietnam taught us once that the United States is not invincible. All of the United States' technological superiority, and all the courage and skill of its soldiers, may be useless against certain kinds of enemies using certain kinds of strategy.

After all, military power is not something you hang on a wall for visitors to admire. Real military power is power that can be used. America’s famous 12 aircraft carrier battle groups are not much use on the streets of Fallujah.

Lessons not learned

Vietnam also should have taught us that American preaching of democracy, even with the best of intentions, will not be accepted by other peoples — if it is accompanied by strategies that they see as opposed to their national pride and national aspirations.

Yet, a generation later, these lessons seem to have been forgotten. The stakes today are much higher than they were in Vietnam.

Getting serious on security

Despite the illusions of that time, Indochina was never really very important to the United States, to its leadership in the world, or to the world economy.

The Democrats are bitterly, and rightly, critical of the monstrous incompetence displayed by the Bush Administration. But they do not themselves have an alternative strategy.

Nobody could say that of the Middle East today. Nor was there ever a chance of the Vietnamese Communists, or Saddam Hussein for that matter, attacking Americans at home.

Americans, the British and the Spanish all have bitter reason to know that this is not true of Al Qaeda and its allies. The threat from Islamist terrorism has to be taken very seriously indeed — more seriously than any other security issue now facing the United States.

Missing the meaning

Unfortunately the political left, believing the terrorist threat has been exaggerated, directs more of its attention and criticism at America’s own government than at the nation’s mortal enemies.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq has squandered time and energy, increased Muslim hatred of the United States — and created a breeding ground for terrorists. A war with Iran would repeat this dreadful mistake on an even larger scale.

Attacking terrorism

Shunning these distractions, we need to focus on Al Qaeda and their allies in the world of Sunni Islamist extremism. These are the people who actually carried out 9/11 and killed thousands of Americans.

The stakes are much higher today than they were in Vietnam. Despite the illusions of that time, Indochina was never really very important to the United States.

They are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and if they gain them and can deploy them, they will carry out atrocities far worse than 9/11 — and not just against us, but against all their enemies.

Russians, Shia Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan, and victims of the Taliban in Afghanistan all have good reason to know this. The Islamist terrorists are also our most dangerous enemies because they can persuade us to destroy ourselves.

Aftermath

We have already seen in the years after 9/11 how that terrorist attack has led the U.S. administration and military into actions and arguments that previous generations of Americans would have found inconceivable.

These actions have tarnished the image of American democracy in the world. One shudders to think of the consequences for U.S. democracy of another truly massive terrorist attack.

Editor's note: Adapted from ETHICAL REALISM: A Vision for America’s Role in the World © 2006 by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman. Reprinted with permission by Pantheon Books, a division of Random House, Inc.




Join the discussion of this article on our Facebook page.

Follow The Globalist on Twitter.




Copyright © 2000-2013 by The Globalist. Reproduction of content on this site without The Globalist's written permission is strictly prohibited. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

The Globalist claims full trademark rights to The Globalist name and logos.

1100 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036