With regards to Iraq, I think going in was a good strategy. The fundamental problems confronting the US after Sept 11 was a whole gamut of issues arising out of an area that is inherently unstable, unfriendly and occupying a key piece of geopolitical real-estate. As such, America (and the rest of us, whether we like it or not) could not afford not to engage itself in the Middle East in an assertive manner for two reasons:
1) The preponderant importance of petroleum in sustaining our economic well-being. If the strength of America (and the West) was to fade in the eyes of Jihadis, fundamentalists, tin-pot dictators, and slippery Saudi princes, then there was a real risk of losing the "cooperative" influence that the West possessed in the region. Whether we like it or not, going to war for oil is necessary - if someone wishes to leave the well-being of close to a billion people in the hands of dictators and/or mullahs, then they're not thinking with their head.
2) The nature of the threat demanded it (Props to Kirkhill for elaborating on this one to me one night). In the last big geopolitical struggle, Containment was a strategy that worked because the ideology of Communism was sustained and propelled by the Red Army and the Red Army was sustained and propelled by a system that contained the seeds of its own demise (which George Kennan very keenly pointed out with the "X" Article). The threat was very conventional, and as such could be penned in by conventional responses around the periphery of the Soviet Empire (hence "Containment")
We are now faced with a very different situation, as the attacks of September 11 brought to stark clarity. The forces involved in this geopolitical struggle are "4th Generation" in nature.
http://d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm
How do you "contain" a threat that slips through your defences by using the freedoms that civil society guarantees? How do you stop a threat that ignores your Carrier Battle Groups and takes down the symbol of your economic well-being with a set of box cutters and a ruthless will? Obviously, containing the threat posed by terrorist forces cannot be accomplished by building a ring around their center of gravity - as our very way of living leaves the ring porous enough for enemy agents and cells to slip through. That leaves America (and the West) with two alternatives:
1. Disengagement (An immediate goal of the Jihadis). Completely unworkable. As I said above, the geopolitical nature of the Middle East will not allow us to do so until we can disengage our economy from petroleum dependency. The world will not ignore the Middle East and the Middle East cannot spurn the world. As well, like it or not, America has put itself firmly in the camp of Israel. Considering a good proportion of the Middle East still officially refuses the right of the Jews to exist, we won't be leaving our ally high-and-dry - especially when they are now armed with nuclear weapons and the will to use them if faced with extinction.
2. Intervention. This is the policy I see the US currently engaging in, and on a general level, I support it. This is how I see (and justify) the US invasion and occupation (lets not cloud words and intentions) of Iraq.
- The US invaded Afghanistan, a key center of gravity for the "Jihadis" (although I don't believe this term does complete justice to the enemy forces, I'll use it for simplicity's sake). The Taliban regime was a key force in legitimizing and supporting AQ. However, once that was initiated, the stark fact remained that the US was on the periphery of the geopolitical area that was hostile to it. Staying in Afghanistan would be the equivalent of trying to undermine Communism by beating the Cambodians.
Where is a more focused "center of gravity" for Jihadi operations? Here is my guesses:
- Pakistan: Player in the Jihadi game. However, Pervez Musharraf is generally friendly (in a Realpolitik kind of way) and realizes that the "radicalization" of Pakistani society by Zia in the '80's was a big mistake and a threat to his well being. Plus, Pakistan has, despite an rocky relationship, traditionally been an ally of the West and the United States, and Musharraf wouldn't want to risk having America turn to India now that Militant Islam is enemy #1. Best use what influence is still there to let things evolve rather then squandering a good political link through antagonising a General on a precarious throne.
- Egypt: Very populous country pervaded by Jihadi elements. However, the Mubarak government is very friendly to Western interests and is a agent for Middle East stability. Attacking or coercing them would be unwise.
- Syria: Still a bit player in the Jihadi game, but not so much anymore. Assad Jr. can be turned if the West plays its cards right, meaning that the Syrian "monolith" of Assad Sr. is no more. Better not to spoil the water by throwing force on this one - it may only act to alienate Assad and throw him into the corner of his fathers cronies.
- Saudi Arabia: One of the big players in the Jihadi game - however, attacks on the Holy Land of Islam would be very foolhardy indeed. Again, leveraging the side of the House of Saud that enjoys sports cars, yachts, and Ivy league universities is the way to go.
- Iran: Although you can't put Iran in the Jihadi camp (Wahabi's view Shi'ites as Jews in disguise) they contribute to a unfriendly geopolitical atmosphere due to their past state-sponsorship of terrorism, their fervent anti-Westernism, and their overt attempt to become the player in the Middle East. However, Iran would be a really tough nut to crack and would not really do much in stemming the activities of groups like Al Qaeda (Attacking Irish Protestants will not do anything to the IRA). Better to let the intelligent and energetic generation of young Iranians who are not to pleased with authoritarian Mullahs do the job from within.
This leaves us, with, surprise of surprises, Iraq.
- Iraq: Although not a big player in the Jihadi game, Saddam certainly didn't mind helping to poke America and the West in the eye. However, following September 11, Iraq started to look more and more like the perfect target for a strategy of intervention for the following reasons:
1) It was run by a tin-pot dictator who's time was up. Not only did he succeed in isolating himself from his neighbours by attack east (Iran), west (Kuwait), and south (Saudi Arabia), but his attempt to be the "big-man" on the block had generally turned world opinion against him (unless you were the French or the Russians and you were making a pretty penny off him). Despite the various prostrations of the anti-war crowd, no one can really offer a good reason for leaving Saddam on his throne. He was much easier to take down then any other of the regimes of the middle-east
2) It contained a fractured (if any) civil society. Just like Afghanistan - with its conglomerate populations of Pashtuns, Hazaris, Uzbeck, and Tajiks - Iraq was an artificial nation composed of Shi'ite's and Kurds living under the whip of a regime of Sunnis. America and the West had little to fear from fracturing the State of Iraq as the complete lack of civil society meant that we would find willing and able friends. Although they were a little suspicious at first, seeing how they were left high-and-dry in 1992, their opposition to the initial assault on the Ba'ath regime for the purpose of occupation was little to none (of course, the situation has now changed). I think that attempting to go into a much more homogenized state with a more robust civil society would have proved to be a larger headache to American intervention efforts.
3) Iraq's key geopolitical position. Look at a map of the Middle East - Iraq is the center peg. If containing the periphery is not going to work, then you may as well go right to the center if you are going to attempt to intervene. A strong Western presence in Iraq puts it in the "eye of the hurricane". I am sure that attitudes of various Jihadi elements have changed now that there are over 100,000 angry American soldiers in Iraq. Now that America has a credible force that is on the border with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran and has shares in an key OPEC state, they are in a good position to enforce behaviour change that is geared towards the interests of the West. It is this behaviour change that I believe is the key to going into Iraq and intervening in the Middle East in general.
However, I am skeptical of mixing the strategy of behaviour modification with some sort of attempt at the short-term spread of democracy - I call it democracy on the end of a bayonet. I do not believe that a strategy of evangelism (for lack of any better term) is suited to Western interests. Trying to force some facade of a liberal democratic order is about as useless an expression of Wilsonian idealism as there is. This is why I am not sure I support active intervention in the civil society of Iraq. It was fractured from the artifice of the Ba'athist regime, conflict was a foregone conclusion - Iraq would need some time to sort out its new state identity. With America putting its units in Saddam's palaces and having bureaucrats and tanks moving about during this is the equivalent of sticking your hand in a hornets nest right after you pounded it with a stick. End result, you get drawn in and two-bit chumps like Moqtada al-Sadr all of the sudden gain real currency as players in the game (which undermines the efforts of guys like Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, who are generally friendly to your cause).
As well, getting tangled up in the populations of Iraq leads to another issue that I believe affects attitudes - the fact that American soldiers in Iraq do draw Jihadis out like a magnet. However valid soem may feel the theory of engaging Jihadi forces in Iraq rather then in America is, I am sure that the citizens of Iraq do not appreciate the fact that their houses, markets, and mosques are being used as a battleground by US and Jihadi fighters. Sticking combat soldiers in cities seems to be burning more bridges then their building.
I often wonder if a strategy of "sitting back" in the ensuing scrum would have been a more effective way to go about things. Leave the Tigris and Euphrates floodplain and move to the uninhabited desert of the West. Let Iraq iron out itself - they can come to their own conclusions on how to rule themselves. Someone was keen to point out that the people of Iraq were an ancient and complex civilization while we Westerners were living in huts and worshipping trees. Offer help if asked and don't pick sides and don't put your military forces in someone else's fight. Use Special Operations Forces to make forays into any Jihadi elements that can be identified and wipe them out quietly and effectively.
Make it clear to the people of Iraq that the West is not their on an "evangelist" mission (YOU WILL BE A DEMOCRACY - VOTE!), but are in the Middle East to intervene against a faction that is unfriendly our interests. As well, make it clear to whoever comes out on top of the scrum that they have to play ball with the international community. Use diplomacy - the "carrot and the stick" - to show Iraq that the West will not tolerate replacing Saddam with another despot who thrives off of nepotism and acts as a destabilizing force in the region. The fate of Saddam Hussein should be proof enough that the West means what it says. There was a good article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs that pointed out how Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were built and sustained by assertive and yet subtle diplomacy along with the force to back it up. As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Walk Softly but Carry a Big Stick...."
The occupants of the Middle East are a tough and proud people; they will recognize and respect the strength of Western and American might and resolve to undermine the threat of terrorism at it's center of gravity - the unstable geopolitical region of the Middle East. However, I do not believe they will respect us if we use the might and resolve to attempt to rebuild Iraq in our image.
Quote bt MissMolsonIndy
"If this is the case, "The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power"
Then is the root cause of US foreign policy and attempt to maintain their hegemonic power over everyone else...?
Foreign Policy is an expression of interests. When foreign policies clash (with either state or sub-state actors), then you have a power struggle (politics...or war, which is merely an extention of politics by other means... ). So sure, US Foreign Policy, like any other interaction between two competing groups, is essentially based upon power.
However, I don't think that US Foreign Policy is rooted in aggressive imperialism, which the tone of your question seems to suggest (if you weren't, then I apologize). US policies, like the policies of any other state, are geared towards the promotion of self-interest. As I said in the big spiel above, the US seems to be pursuing the policy of intervention in the Middle East to secure itself from attacks which could reach catastrophic proportions and to force behaviour modification in a region in a geopolitical region that has traditionally been unfriendly to Western interests.
However, they don't appear willing to want to stay in the Middle East any more then they were willing to expand control over previous conquests, almost all of which the pulled away from (Philippines, Cuba, etc, etc).
Assertive? Yes. Aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist? No.
