I believe that it is a statement of fact, rather than arrogance.
I am sure the Romans and the Ottomans thought of their infallibility as "fact" rather than "arrogance and overconfidence", as well.
I am not big on history, but I have studied the rise and fall of empires as a pet project of mine. The parallels are quite interesting - empires start to decline from about the point they are overconfident in their superiority and hence start to make erroneous choices based on that belief in confrontations.
The only way to lead in the long term in the international arena is by example rather than by force, with the consent of the other countries who thus view your power as legitimate. This is how the US has successfully led the world so far. It is, in fact, the only way the "free world" can be led. If not, it wouldn't be the "free world".
A change in this doctrine, I believe, could very well set into motion the dynamics that would lead to the undermining of its power being perceived as legitimate. Others would unite to oppose such a power, much like in the example of the kids joining against the schoolyard bully.
I am not saying the US is the schoolyard bully. However, it is all about perceptions. The US should avoid to be perceived as a bully if it wishes to continue to lead the world.
I believe that the war in Iraq is part of a bigger strategy to avoid such a war
That case has not been very successfully made. Probably because the reasons for the intended invasion changed every week and there were no proofs for any of them - Iraq supports Al-Qaeda, no wait, they have WMDs, no wait, Saddam is evil, and we are liberating the people of Iraq etc.
Sometimes a show of strength in the beginning can be a favor to your opponent in the bigger picture
That could very well be the case. However, I am not the only person who has asked the question of what Iraq has to do with the "opponent", who should be Al-Qaeda and other religious crazies ready to attack the US for their real and/or imagined crimes against the Muslim nation.
The fact is that Iraq was a secular dictatorship, with far less ties to religious fanaticism than many US allies. I am not sure if its invasion hurt the Islamists at all.
I agree with you, however, that Iraq was a show of force and possibly a deterrent to groups who may wish to attack the US in the future. However, there is a pretty efficient way David can attack Goliath - terrorism. I believe that was precisely the threat that Americans wish to minimize, and I believe the war in Iraq will have exactly the opposite effect in the medium term.
There was another lesson a lot of countries learned from the invasion of Iraq by the US - that they need to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible, for that seems to be the only way to deter the US. It is not a coincidence that soon after Bush made it very clear that the US would invade Iraq at the expense of damaging long standing alliances, international norms and treaties, and at the absence of any conclusive proof of their allegations, North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Proliferation treaty and Iran announced that they have started mining for Uranium.
No doubt you see where this is going. Countries that feel they may be next on US list of "regime change" will soon go nuclear. Their neighbours or those who threatened by them will also have to match their power.
Frankly, I am not so happy with this outcome of the US "showing strength". |
