The Perils of Hegemony
I could go on for hours about this,so I'll try to be as brief as possible.
Our power in the world comes from two things--a. Hard Power: we're got the most powerful military and b. Soft Power: people think we're a wise and moral democracy not interested in taking over the world. Its b. that makes America "special". Without it, we'd be no different than the British Empire, Rome, or any other empire.* I opposed the war because I thought it would diminish our Soft Power.
This is based on three reasons: 1. I didn't think Saddam was a threat 2. I didn't think we could build a democracy there. and 3. Given 1 and 2 are true, I thought invading the country when everyone else was saying not to do it made us look like an imperialistic bully, especially given that oil was part of the reason we chose Iraq rather than any other arab country ruled by a dictator.
If we invaded Iraq and found lots of WMD and managed to build a democracy there,
then reason 3 would disappear. We'd just prove the rest of the world was wrong and the rest of the world would have grudgingly gone along with it...to put it another way, it would turn out America really was that nice, wise democracy not interested in taking over the world.
Its become clear that we've lost on #1--Saddam wasn't a threat. Now we're left
with #2 as the only thing holding up the legitimacy of our action. If we fail to bring democracy to Iraq, our Soft Power in the world will diminish substantially..and we will
be branded an evil empire, no different from the rest.
Nor does it matter that we've gotten rid of Saddam. Of course it matters to the Iraqis...they're better off without Saddam's tyranny...but we're talking about what is
in our national interest, not whether we should give everyone a pony. I'm sure it makes it look better to the rest of the world that we've overthrown a tyrant, but if Iraq is reduced to chaos and if oil is seen as the ulterior motive behind our action, on balance, we will end up looking really, really bad.
To sum up, there are "good" hegemons (the kind that spend on the marshall plan to revitalize europe) and "bad" hegemons (powerful countries that invade other countries by force for their resources). Before Iraq and during the 90s, most people thought we were a good hegemon. After Iraq, we are increasingly looking like a bad hegemon.
Making us look like a bad hegemon doesn't make us safer or more secure. In fact, it might make us less secure. It will turn our allies against us, convince people in the arab world that the terrorists are right, and create more conflicts in the world.
Of course, this is an ongoing story...lets just hope we can successfully build a democracy in Iraq. Thats all we've got anymore.
----------------------------------
*"We're not an empire". This is what Americans believe. In fact, prior to invading Iraq, this was arguably true. My technical definition of an empire would be a country which (1) occupies colonies (2) by force (3) that it does not integrate into itself and (4) uses for its own benefit. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had vassal states(Japan, Europe, S. Korea, Saudi Arabia) which it occupied but NOT by force, so it technically wasn't an empire..post-Iraq, we fit the definition.
Also, we don't escape the categorization simply because our occupation inures to the benefit of Iraqis. If you've seen Life of Brian, you know that Rome provided its colonies with roads, aqueducts, and many other benefits. India and much of the third world got english, railroads and other things from european imperialism.
Didn't make a difference. These were empires and they were EVIL. If I break into a family's house to kill a wifebeater, then I proceed to occupy the house by force but make the family's living condition better, my actions would still be immoral, even though the wife beater was gone.
Our power in the world comes from two things--a. Hard Power: we're got the most powerful military and b. Soft Power: people think we're a wise and moral democracy not interested in taking over the world. Its b. that makes America "special". Without it, we'd be no different than the British Empire, Rome, or any other empire.* I opposed the war because I thought it would diminish our Soft Power.
This is based on three reasons: 1. I didn't think Saddam was a threat 2. I didn't think we could build a democracy there. and 3. Given 1 and 2 are true, I thought invading the country when everyone else was saying not to do it made us look like an imperialistic bully, especially given that oil was part of the reason we chose Iraq rather than any other arab country ruled by a dictator.
If we invaded Iraq and found lots of WMD and managed to build a democracy there,
then reason 3 would disappear. We'd just prove the rest of the world was wrong and the rest of the world would have grudgingly gone along with it...to put it another way, it would turn out America really was that nice, wise democracy not interested in taking over the world.
Its become clear that we've lost on #1--Saddam wasn't a threat. Now we're left
with #2 as the only thing holding up the legitimacy of our action. If we fail to bring democracy to Iraq, our Soft Power in the world will diminish substantially..and we will
be branded an evil empire, no different from the rest.
Nor does it matter that we've gotten rid of Saddam. Of course it matters to the Iraqis...they're better off without Saddam's tyranny...but we're talking about what is
in our national interest, not whether we should give everyone a pony. I'm sure it makes it look better to the rest of the world that we've overthrown a tyrant, but if Iraq is reduced to chaos and if oil is seen as the ulterior motive behind our action, on balance, we will end up looking really, really bad.
To sum up, there are "good" hegemons (the kind that spend on the marshall plan to revitalize europe) and "bad" hegemons (powerful countries that invade other countries by force for their resources). Before Iraq and during the 90s, most people thought we were a good hegemon. After Iraq, we are increasingly looking like a bad hegemon.
Making us look like a bad hegemon doesn't make us safer or more secure. In fact, it might make us less secure. It will turn our allies against us, convince people in the arab world that the terrorists are right, and create more conflicts in the world.
Of course, this is an ongoing story...lets just hope we can successfully build a democracy in Iraq. Thats all we've got anymore.
----------------------------------
*"We're not an empire". This is what Americans believe. In fact, prior to invading Iraq, this was arguably true. My technical definition of an empire would be a country which (1) occupies colonies (2) by force (3) that it does not integrate into itself and (4) uses for its own benefit. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had vassal states(Japan, Europe, S. Korea, Saudi Arabia) which it occupied but NOT by force, so it technically wasn't an empire..post-Iraq, we fit the definition.
Also, we don't escape the categorization simply because our occupation inures to the benefit of Iraqis. If you've seen Life of Brian, you know that Rome provided its colonies with roads, aqueducts, and many other benefits. India and much of the third world got english, railroads and other things from european imperialism.
Didn't make a difference. These were empires and they were EVIL. If I break into a family's house to kill a wifebeater, then I proceed to occupy the house by force but make the family's living condition better, my actions would still be immoral, even though the wife beater was gone.