My longish article on the broader implications of the US’s still-unfolding strategic defeat in Iraq is up on the Salon.com website today. The title and sub-title that the editors gave it were:
- The incredible shrinking U.S.
Despite the death of Zarqawi, Bush’s huge gamble in Iraq has failed. As a result, the U.S. is weaker everywhere in the world — and that’s not all bad.
(If you’re not a “Salon Premium” member or whatever, you have to sit through a short advertisement before you can read the whole text there.)
Luckily, I did get the chance yesterday to work with my editor to put in a new lead mentioning the Zarqawi killing and the Iraqi PM’s completion of his cabinet. My broader judgment regarding the failure of the Bushites’ “big roll of the dice” in Iraq still stands, though.
The editor, Gary Kamiya, made me work hard on the piece! He pushed me to address several areas of the topic that I hadn’t done in my first draft… so the word length came in ways over the 2,000 words he’d originally suggested. But the points he made were very intelligent ones; I actually enjoyed working with him… and more to the point I like the way the piece came out in the end.
Talking of ends, here’s how the piece concludes:
- I realize there are many Americans who are not as ready as I am to welcome the prospect of a diminishment (or, as I would say, a rectification) of the disproportionate amount of power our nation has been able to wield in world affairs over the past 60 years. Many Americans today — like many British or French citizens 80 years ago — think it is somehow “natural” that their nation intervene in the doings of other nations around the world and act as the crucial arbiter in international affairs. (And yes, throughout history nearly all such interventions have always come dressed in “salvationist” garb: Very few nations ever knowingly undertake a war or any other foreign intervention that its people clearly understand to be unjust at the time. If such understanding comes at all, it does so only later.)
Why does U.S. hegemonism in the world seem “natural” to so many Americans? Plumbing the roots of that particular wrinkle on the broader conceit of American exceptionalism would take a long time! Suffice it to note here that after 9/11 the attacks of that day laid their own potent overlay of shock, fear and anger onto the bedrock of those older American attitudes. For roughly 30 months after 9/11, feelings of vengefulness, and of the righteousness of American anger (and of all the actions that flowed therefrom), seemed still to dominate the consciousness of a broad political elite in the U.S. It was only after the revelations of Abu Ghraib in April 2004 that the country’s mainstream discourse on the war, and on what their vengefulness had caused the U.S. to become, became more self-aware and open to self-criticism.
Today, a clear majority of Americans judge that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. A similarly clear majority say the administration should set a timetable for withdrawal. This willingness to challenge the Bush people’s spin on the situation in Iraq is a welcome sign of increased public understanding, but it does not signal any automatic readiness to challenge the principle of U.S. exceptionalism more broadly. Grappling with that issue is, I believe, our next great challenge as a citizenry; and it is a challenge that the events of the next few years will almost certainly force us to confront head-on.
So here’s the rough history of this piece. Exactly two weeks ago today I pitched four story ideas to Gary: three of them were on topics related to the failure of the Bushite project in Iraq. It took him almost a week to get back to me, to tell me this was the one he wanted to run with. Meantime, I’d used some of the material from the suggested topic “How will we remember this war?” in this Memorial Day post here at JWN.
Last weekend and through to early Tuesday morning I worked hard on my first draft. (I was also doing a bunch of other important things in that time… It felt extremely fraught.) Then Gary and I went to and fro on it a bit, and it finally got up onto the site early this morning.
Today I need to work on the page proofs on my Africa book. Print publishing feels very arduous indeed these days. But worth it, I think.
I just read you article in Salon and posted a letter in reponse there. I didn’t quite understand your position on the role of U.S. in global affairs, it seemed a bit muddled. Obviously, you were and are still against the Irag war. Yet it seemed to me that you would view U.S. military involvement in Somalia or Darfur as a positive (I’m not sure how else you think they can be stabilized). You even make the case that solving problems in these regions now would prevent the creation of more “international troublemakers.” Wouldn’t that be a kind of preemptive war? And how is that different from our motivations in Iraq? Furthermore, if Iraq has taught us anything, isn’t it that our actions can have unintended consequences? What’s to say there won’t be destructive consequences in Somalia (again) or Darfur or Dem. Republic of Congo?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for ceding some responsibilty in global affairs to the other “world powers.” I guess I just don’t see it as a prespective pill for the better exactly. Yes, it eases the burden of the U.S. but how is China going to solve the problem in Iraq any better than the U.S.?
I appreciate your thought-provoking article but it raised more questions than answers for me.
CCE, good questions… However, when I argue for greater US involvement in resolving crises in Darfur, Somalia, or elsewhere I certainly am not arguing for military involvment. I should have specified that what I would (do) seek in such cases is much more US attention to them, first and foremost; and within that rubric much more commitment to provision of humanitarian aid and above all to strengthening the mechanisms of the int’l community capable of doing the vital peacemaking and post-conflict peacebuiklding tasks that they need.
As a corollary to that, obviously the structures of the UN need some serious rebuilding and strengthening. The US has done much to fray or even shred these structures under Bush so far…
(I should have spelled it out better, maybe. But we were up against length and time constraints.)
Like many British or French citizens 80 years ago — think it is somehow “natural” that their nation intervene in the doings of other nations around the world and act as the crucial arbiter in international affairs.
From non British or French citizens pointview They think there were no natural rights for both British or French to be “crucial arbiter in international affairs” I think this is misleading view here for simple reason both those power driven naturally by their selfish attitude searching /exploration more resources, more wealth for their nations that was the root for their mangling with other nations rights and issues, there is nothing at all related to judge or decide a disputed issues in that countries they went to.
Same as before when the Churches in Middle Ages took the lead to promote their will on their people in Europe and Brittain they started their wars during the crusades time there were nothing “crucial arbiter in international affairs” at a time as such it was for search for the power on other nations.
British or French In fact they done a lot of harm to those international communities and countries some made them suffered more for long coming years because they created a problems and disputed to those nations which caused ongoing destabilizations some times may drive some of them to a war between them this is very clear where British or French were been in areas or countries before.
But those British or French citizens was felt that’s their “natural” right to intervene because they prepared by their states, government, leaders and agencies who have the power on them, those looking for more wealth specially after the industrial booming in Europe, they want more markets and more resources like oil.
The simple example what we saw in Iraq invasion and till now it’s a valid.
US citizens who supported their government for invasion of Iraq most of them its a natural corse they did not think about it, the believing without thinking because they driven by power “US administration” they diluted them to this direction, until the lies and atrocities shocked some made them use their minds to figurout what’s their right to go and invade another country.
Helena
I suspect you have got it wrong on US intentions and diminished power.
If you look at ITAR-TASS you will find US Marines trapped in their Barracks in Crimea while taking part in exercises in the Black Sea, and Israeli Warships in Bulgaria on similar exercises.
Daily Telegraph reports the agreement of Kazakhstan to push some of its oil and gas through the BTC pipeline, to the evident satisfaction of Mr Cheney.
The US have a few hundred special forces in Georgia.
The Russians are embargoing Georgian wine and rattling the Georgians chain.
The Russians have made it plain that Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members would not be good.
What I suspect is happening is that like Gallipoli the US will pull the troops out of Iraq one night and redeploy them to some other front.
A president from a party that might get slaughtered in the next election might start so many troublespots that his sucessor would have a hard time extricating themselves without looking even weaker than the US does now, where they are experiencing the Gulliver effect of being tied down by lots of little people.
So the mid terms will be as interesting for us folks closer to the shooting as the good people of Charlottesville.
First I would like to express my gratitude for your timely analysis. Given that I am neither a resident of nor, much less, an expert on the Middle East, you have rapidly become both an important and reliable resource for me to make sense of what is happening in that region of the world.
Secondly, and to the point, I was wondering if you might tie into your analysis of the declining US influence and stature in the Middle East and the world, what is going on in the former soviet republics of Central Asia. Taking as a point of departure what previous commenter Frank al Irlandi states above, perhaps you could trace the growing importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a geostrategic counter-weight to US designs on the region and elaborate a bit on the outcome of their upcoming anniversary summit scheduled (I believe) for later this month.
Brilliant article Helena.
Throw of the Dice indeed.
In response to Ms. Cobban’s first answer above on providing humanitarian aid, how about the first “aid” be that all sales of weapons to third-world countries be abolished! Impossible, of course, but think how much easier it would be to exploit them if they weren’t holding Kalashnikov’s! (a bit of sarcasm and possibly despair)