On Wednesday, the United States began a military campaign to disarm Iraq and unseat Saddam Hussein. The result of Operation Iraqi Freedom may be just that -- to transform Iraq into a free, prosperous and democratic country. But Iraqi society will not be the only thing remade by this conflict. Far from an isolated campaign to defang a dictator, the war in Iraq marks a fundamental change in our international system and in the way America exercises its power.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has been the world's preeminent military and economic power. In 1945, America's dominance was unchallenged -- with millions of men under arms, a nuclear monopoly and half the world's industrial production, the United States emerged from the war a superpower of the first rank. Since then (and especially since the end of the Cold War), America's dominance has grown still further. Today, the United States has an economy larger than its next three competitors combined and a defense budget larger than the next 15 powers combined.
America's power is unprecedented in world history, but still more remarkable is the extent to which other nations have accepted that power. Throughout history, many nations have achieved some degree of hegemony, but all were toppled by a coalition of lesser nations, united in response to the superpower threat. The fact that no such coalition has emerged to oppose the United States owes less to our spectacular power than to the fashion in which we have exercised it.
Whereas previous hegemons used their power for imperial aggrandizement, the United States began its world dominance with no such intentions. Instead, a victorious America spent the post-war period building a web of international organizations through which it could exercise power without appearing to threaten lesser states. Through the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF and others, the United States was able to mediate its immense military and economic power, exercising influence in an indirect manner acceptable to the international community.
Through these multilateral efforts, the United States created a post-war system of international security and economy that most nations have a stake in preserving. Indeed, for the last five decades, American strength has been the primary guarantor of international security and American wealth the primary guarantor of international financial stability. If no group of nations has emerged to challenge American power, it's because so many nations benefit from the international system America has created.
On Wednesday, that system was shaken to the core. What will replace it is, as yet, unclear.
The first casualty of Operation Iraqi Freedom was America's historic commitment to the multilateral resolution of security threats. The previous Gulf War was fought with the blessing of the United Nations and the active support of our NATO allies. Indeed, throughout the post-war period, the United States has regarded both organizations as important guardians of international security and has sought their support in confronting threats to the peace.
Today, the United State fights in defiance of the United Nations and without the support of key NATO allies. Having failed to win the U.N. Security Council's approval for war, the administration dismissed that body as irrelevant and fought independently. Having failed to win the support of France, Germany, Turkey and other NATO allies, the United States dismissed them, too, as irrelevant and said it could fight without them.
In fighting Iraq alone, the United States has cast off the multilateral institutions that used to provide legitimacy to American actions. For the past five decades, the United States has exercised its power according to law and in the context of multilateral alliance structures. On Wednesday, America embarked on a new phase of world dominance, where international law is replaced by presidential judgment and multilateral cooperation by American unilateralism.
No matter how benign our intentions, a world governed by unrestrained American power will be threatening to many nations. Their attempts to achieve security in these new circumstances will, in turn, present new threats to the United States. In the coming years, America will find itself in direct, threatening relationships with more nations than ever before -- relationships unmediated by international law and organization, in which each side must seek its security by military means or face attack by the other.
The consequences of this new world order are difficult to predict, but several nations are already preparing for it. North Korea and Iran have undertaken the rapid development of their nuclear forces and others may join them. In a world where the United States may launch preemptive war on any nation it deems threatening, the only sure defense is nuclear deterrence. By fighting Iraq in defiance of old allies and institutions, America will convince its foes that security lies not in law, but in the rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
In attacking Iraq this week, the Bush administration expressed its belief that American unilateralism offers greater security than multilateral cooperation. But any security gains accomplished by the unilateral exercise of American power will be offset by new threats emerging from a frightened world. America has struck out in pursuit of absolute security, but the end result may be the world's absolute insecurity.
(Alec Solotorovsky is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | YesterdayWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
