By the Bush administration's own concept of the "war on terror," they have botched the job. While the attack on Iraq proved unnecessary -Saddam's regime posing at that time no threat of WMDs-the failed Bush policies have greatly increased the danger from the other two members of that "Axis of Evil."
America's naked display of might in Iraq was supposed to make the Iranians quake and get in line: With the great superpower on their border, the mullahs were supposed to fear that they would be next.
Instead, the Iranians are strengthened --freed of their main rival next door and enabled the Iranians to inflict punishment, through their proxies, on the exposed American forces in Iraq. The war that was supposed to make Iraq a vital outpost of American power in the region may have the opposite effect: The most likely political outcome in Iraq, other than prolonged civil war, is a Shi'ite-dominated regime much more friendly to the Shi'ite theocracy in Iran than to their supposed American "liberators."
And meanwhile the American military --over-stretched and degraded by the Iraqi mission-- is in no shape to take on any new assignments on the ground elsewhere in the world.
Is it any wonder that both the Iranians and the North Koreans thumb their nose at the American power? And is it any wonder that -threatened by an America that advances a doctrine of preventive war-those unsavory regimes have intensified their ambition to obtain weapons so powerful that they might deter a superpower?
Indispensable Nation
So it turns out that Madeleine Albright was right that the world needs American leadership-or at least American leadership that is reasonably trustworthy and capable. Without that, the world is unlikely to make progress on challenges such as climate change, the rule of law in international affairs, and nuclear proliferation. But worse, in the absence of trusted American leadership, the international order will tend to break down.
Had there been American leadership in recent years capably engaged in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, it is doubtful that the area would be --as now-- on the verge of regional war. Had there been the usual kind of American leadership, it is unlikely that the effort to stop Iran and North Korea from becoming nuclear powers would have been such a complete failure. (Conversely, if at the end of the cold war the face of America had been that of George W. Bush, rather than that of his father, it is doubtful that a Gorbachev would have acquiesced in the reunification of a Germany aligned with the United States.)
Nations still cooperate with the United States: This country is simply too important -politically, economically, militarily-to be ignored. But this administration is not trusted and so cannot serve as world leader.
And there is no one else to fill that vacuum. The Europeans are not sufficiently united and, besides, they have the long-ingrained habit of waiting for the Americans to lead the way. The Russians are lapsing back into authoritarian rule and expansionist ambitions, and while the Chinese have become a formidable power, China's regime is not one capable of leading the world forward.
Thus the system has become brittle, and it is shattering at points of stress. It has been set adrift, and the current flows downhill.
The Bush administration continues to portray this president as a strong and effective protector of America and its interests. But the evidence to the contrary is now displayed around the world-with the flames in the Middle East, with America in disrepute around the world, with the price of oil over $70 a barrel and rising, with our adversaries growing stronger and bolder. And we Americans must ask ourselves that old question: Who are we going to believe-the Bushites' phony image or our own eyes?
America's naked display of might in Iraq was supposed to make the Iranians quake and get in line: With the great superpower on their border, the mullahs were supposed to fear that they would be next.
Instead, the Iranians are strengthened --freed of their main rival next door and enabled the Iranians to inflict punishment, through their proxies, on the exposed American forces in Iraq. The war that was supposed to make Iraq a vital outpost of American power in the region may have the opposite effect: The most likely political outcome in Iraq, other than prolonged civil war, is a Shi'ite-dominated regime much more friendly to the Shi'ite theocracy in Iran than to their supposed American "liberators."
And meanwhile the American military --over-stretched and degraded by the Iraqi mission-- is in no shape to take on any new assignments on the ground elsewhere in the world.
Indispensable Nation
So it turns out that Madeleine Albright was right that the world needs American leadership-or at least American leadership that is reasonably trustworthy and capable. Without that, the world is unlikely to make progress on challenges such as climate change, the rule of law in international affairs, and nuclear proliferation. But worse, in the absence of trusted American leadership, the international order will tend to break down.
Had there been American leadership in recent years capably engaged in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, it is doubtful that the area would be --as now-- on the verge of regional war. Had there been the usual kind of American leadership, it is unlikely that the effort to stop Iran and North Korea from becoming nuclear powers would have been such a complete failure. (Conversely, if at the end of the cold war the face of America had been that of George W. Bush, rather than that of his father, it is doubtful that a Gorbachev would have acquiesced in the reunification of a Germany aligned with the United States.)
Nations still cooperate with the United States: This country is simply too important -politically, economically, militarily-to be ignored. But this administration is not trusted and so cannot serve as world leader.
And there is no one else to fill that vacuum. The Europeans are not sufficiently united and, besides, they have the long-ingrained habit of waiting for the Americans to lead the way. The Russians are lapsing back into authoritarian rule and expansionist ambitions, and while the Chinese have become a formidable power, China's regime is not one capable of leading the world forward.
Thus the system has become brittle, and it is shattering at points of stress. It has been set adrift, and the current flows downhill.
The Bush administration continues to portray this president as a strong and effective protector of America and its interests. But the evidence to the contrary is now displayed around the world-with the flames in the Middle East, with America in disrepute around the world, with the price of oil over $70 a barrel and rising, with our adversaries growing stronger and bolder. And we Americans must ask ourselves that old question: Who are we going to believe-the Bushites' phony image or our own eyes?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
