Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (47889)	5/31/2004 8:31:02 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 89467

America's battle to regain respect news.ft.com Published: May 30 2004 18:49 \| Last Updated: May 30 2004 18:49 We have reached a turning-point in international politics as well as in Iraq. President George W. Bush is widely seen to have gambled on Iraq and lost. The impact of that loss goes well beyond Iraq. The US has not been defeated in battle and is unlikely to be so but it can no longer impose its will on Iraq because it lacks the moral authority to do so. The "resistance" in any of its many guises is too divided to win and half- decent outcomes may yet emerge. The point is only that the future of Iraq increasingly depends on the variable quality of local leaders in the country, their ability to understand the consequences of allowing violence to become the first arbiter of their differences, the role that the United Nations chooses to play in helping to secure a transition from coalition occupation - and the readiness of the Americans to accept that they have lost the initiative. If he is to have any chance of success, Ayad Allawi, would-be prime minister, will need to demonstrate his distance from the coalition. This was not inevitable. The arrogance and hubris with which the Bush administration embarked on this war in the first place used up much moral capital. Nonetheless this might have been replenished by the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which could have been presented as a noble cause. The negative views of carping members of the UN Security Council would have counted for little if the US-led coalition had established that it was truly the liberator, acting on behalf of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, while much of the opprobrium heaped upon the Bush administration in the past was unfair, it now seems to be well deserved. Policy since April 2003 has been crudely and inconsistently improvised and troops have behaved as occupiers. They have insisted on taking on local militias and then been obliged to draw back. The alienation of US-led forces from the Iraqi people, starkly illustrated by the pictures of US personnel abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, began almost from the moment of Saddam Hussein's overthrow and then gathered pace until it reached crisis point in April. The chaos and violence unfolding in Iraq have consequences that are beginning to affect the entire international position of the US. Its friends are dumbfounded and its enemies almost overwhelmed by the propaganda bounty that has been handed to them. Consider the two remaining members of the original "axis of evil" introduced by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: Iran and North Korea. Both are more advanced in their nuclear programmes than Iraq was. Any claims made by US officials are now almost certain to be disbelieved - even if they are true - and Washington's ability to maintain pressure on these regimes to comply with their treaty obligations has been eroded. With "pre-emption fatigue" setting in, US military threats can be more easily discounted. China is now crucial in managing the capricious North Koreans, while the Americans are currently contemplating moving troops away from the Korean peninsula in order to fill gaps in Iraq. Because the US has long refused to establish economic or diplomatic ties with Iran, only the Europeans seem to have any sort of leverage over Tehran. The British are determined to draw in the Iranians as a potentially calming influence on the Shia Muslim population in southern Iraq. American objections, quite strong in the past, are growing fainter. Support for Ariel Sharon has backfired as it has associated the US more than ever with ruthless Israeli policies while turning out to be insufficient to secure him backing from his Likud party for a modest withdrawal plan; and as he blusters about, clueless in Gaza, Washington seems to have nothing useful to say. As evidence of how bad things have become for the image of the Bush administration, note that even Michael Howard, leader of the British Conservative party, can see political advantage in chiding Tony Blair for not disagreeing more openly with Washington. Already in Spain and potentially soon in Australia and Italy, as well as Britain, guilt by association with US policy has become a real electoral liability. With the potential members of "coalitions of the willing" in decline, the Americans must return to the multilateral institutions they once scorned, where they find that past behaviour continues to undermine their influence. So a vacuum has opened up at the heart of world politics where US leadership ought to be found. It would be nice to think it could be filled by an assertion of European power but that is unlikely. There is not only a lack of common purpose in Europe but also an absence of real clout. The current uncertainties over the future of the European Union's constitution and the European Commission highlight the problem. Relations are still fragile between Britain and France, the two countries that, if they worked together, might be able to lead. European leaders know that in many areas little can be achieved internationally without US support and that as the risk of a robust American imperialism declines, that of an introverted isolationism grows. They can draw comfort from the thought that multilateralism is back in vogue and that the disclosure and investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate the vitality of US democracy. It is by no means clear, however, that the extent of the problem is fully appreciated within the US. Until recently there was reason to suppose that, with a fresh team, Mr Bush might be able to regain some of the moral authority he had lost. No longer. John Kerry has identified what he calls a "powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again - an America that is respected, and not just feared". Neither the power of that yearning nor the difficulty of regaining respect should be underestimated. Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies and vice-principal (research) at King's College London CC