When I wrote about the End of History almost 20 years ago, one thing that I did not anticipate was the degree to which American behaviour and misjudgments would make anti-Americanism one of the chief fault lines of global politics. And yet, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, that is precisely what has happened, owing to four key mistakes made by the Bush administration.
First, the doctrine of "preemption", which was devised in response to the 2001 attacks, was inappropriately broadened to include Iraq and other so-called "rogue states" that threatened to develop weapons of mass destruction. To be sure, preemption is fully justified vis-a-vis stateless terrorists wielding such weapons. But it cannot be the core of a general non-proliferation policy, whereby the United States intervenes militarily everywhere to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.
The second important miscalculation concerned the likely global reaction to America's exercise of its hegemonic power. Many people within the Bush administration believed that even without approval by the UN security council or Nato, American power would be legitimised by its successful use. This had been the pattern for many US initiatives during the cold war, and in the Balkans during the 1990s; back then, it was known as "leadership" rather than "unilateralism".
America's third mistake was to overestimate how effective conventional military power would be in dealing with the weak states and networked transnational organisations that characterise international politics, at least in the broader Middle East.
Finally, the Bush administration's use of power has lacked not only a compelling strategy or doctrine, but also simple competence. In Iraq alone, the administration misestimated the threat of WMD, failed to plan adequately for the occupation, and then proved unable to adjust quickly when things went wrong. To this day, it has dropped the ball on very straightforward operational issues in Iraq, such as funding democracy promotion efforts.
Incompetence in implementation has strategic consequences. Many of the voices that called for, and then bungled, military intervention in Iraq are now calling for war with Iran. Why should the rest of the world think that conflict with a larger and more resolute enemy would be handled any more capably?
But the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint. America's founding fathers were motivated by a similar belief that unchecked power, even when democratically legitimated, could be dangerous, which is why they created a constitutional system of internally separated powers to limit the executive.
Such a system does not exist on a global scale today, which may explain how America got into such trouble. A smoother international distribution of power, even in a global system that is less than fully democratic, would pose fewer temptations to abandon the prudent exercise of power.
I can't wait to hear what our betters have to say when before Bush leaves office it's clear even to them that he defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq.
But, I'm convinced. Let's give Iran the bomb. And Zimbobway too.
#4
No, really, I have credibility. I'm not a failure. I'm not a luser. Everything would have been just like I said it was going to be except they were so incompetnet. I mean, incompetant. Imcopetant.
Sorry to screw up all your beautiful theories, big boy. But you seem to have completely overlooked the rise of the primal force of religion-based global conquest. We might not be at the end of history after all. Better luck next time.
#6
Fuki made a fortune selling his book in the 90s and now finds he made himself irrelevant. Life is tough taht way. I remember at the time some folks were saying Islam was the next big bad guys and others (like Fuki) were saying that the right just needed an enemy and they were making one up.
He missed the boat totally. I can't imaging taking anything he says seriously anymore.
It goes without saying that if and when a decision is made in Jerusalem or Washington to carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations the public will only learn of the decision in retrospect. All the same, over the last few weeks, it has been impossible to miss the fact that the Iranian nuclear program has become the subject of intense and ever increasing international scrutiny. This naturally gives rise to the impression that something is afoot.
Take for example the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency Muhammad elBaradei's recent remarks on the subject. Speaking to Le Monde on Monday, elBaradei asserted that it will take Iran between three to eight years to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Consequently, he argued, there is no reason to consider conducting a military strike against Teheran's program. There is still plenty of time for diplomacy, or sanctions or even incentives for the ayatollahs, he said.
ElBaradei's statement is only interesting when it is compared to a statement he made in December 2005 to the Independent. Back then Baradei's view was that Iran was just "a few months" away from producing atomic bombs. But then too he saw no reason to attack. As he put it when he warned that Iran was on the precipice of nuclear weapons, using force would just "open Pandora's box." "There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate, and at the end of the day, you have to go back to the negotiation table to find the solution," elBaradei warned.
Continued on Page 49
#2
He asked Syria and Iran to cooperate in this effort
End of story. Asking tyrannies to cooperate in working towards goals that are entirely opposed to their own ends demonstrates a degree of moronic behaviorlunacycluelessnessidiocy INCOMPETENCE that is unacceptable in polite civilized society.
As army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman outlined that he would not ask for a seat in the power system, Egypt stressed that electing a head of state is strictly a Lebanese issue and non-Christian opposition-majority leaders said naming a consensus presidential candidate is in Bkirki's hands.
In line with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit's "Hands off Lebanon" outcry and his announcement that Cairo does not support any presidential candidate, Gen. Suleiman was quoted as telling officers upon returning from a visit to Cairo and talks with President Husni Mubarak: "We will not ask for any political seat."
"We will not allow, at all, the political manipulation of the martyrs' blood and sacrifices" Suleiman was quoted by the daily an-Nahar as saying.
Try "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."
Meanwhile, the paper said the Egyptian initiative outlined during Abul Gheit's one-day visit to Lebanon Thursday, focused on four major points:
-The need to reach a broad understanding on all pending issues and not just on a consensus presidential candidate.
-Foreign and regional interests should refrain from exerting pressure on the Lebanese people under the slogan: Hands off Lebanon.
-The interest of the Lebanese people and its future should be the base for any discussion of a settlement.
-Electing a president for Lebanon is a strictly Lebanese interest and, therefore, is a strictly Lebanese choice and "no one can choose a head of state for Lebanon except the Lebanese People."
Meanwhile Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Majority leader Saad Hariri, who represent the opposition and majority in the ongoing talks for choosing a presidential candidate, said they are waiting for efforts by the Maronite Church to achieve consensus on a candidate. Berri was quoted by an-Nahar as saying: "I've informed Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir that I'll support the white smoke that will billow from Bkirki's (chimney). I also make this declaration on behalf of Sheik Saad Hariri."
An-Nahar said Berri and Hariri are keen on waiting for Bkirki to choose a candidate so they can avoid the charge that the Shiites, Sunnis and Druze have chosen a Maronite President without the approval of the Maronite Church. A Hizbullah delegation informed Patriarch Sfeir Thursday that the Shiite party supports Consensus by the Christians on a presidential candidate conditional to nationwide consensus.
A four-member committee representing Maronite factions of the opposition and majority has already set the specifications of a presidential candidate and set the assignments that the new head of state should shoulder. The committee, meeting in Bkirki, is to proceed with its efforts to choose a candidate or a list of candidates in line with the specifications and envisaged assignments.
Abul Gheit on Thursday urged foreign states not to interfere in the Lebanese presidential vote, echoing an outcry by the late Anwar Sadat: "Hands off Lebanon."
"It is up to the Lebanese people to decide themselves," Abul Gheit said after meeting pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose extended term in office expires by Nov. 24.
The late Egyptian President Sadat launched his famous "hands off Lebanon" outcry in the mid-1970s, during the early stages of the civil war that lasted until 1990 despite the intervention by 30.000 Syrian troops and a 10.000-strong intelligence apparatus. During his visit Abul Gheit also met leaders of the ruling majority and Hezbollah-led opposition as well as Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Berri in addition to Lahoud, Sfeir and Sunni Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani. After meeting the patriarch, Abul Gheit said: "We will not interfere with candidates and it should not be inferred that we prefer one candidate over another. We hope that all interference stops."
He explained that a recent meeting between Gen. Michel Sleiman and Mubarak was in the framework of "supporting the Lebanese army", which fought a bloody 15-week battle with Fatah al-Islam terrorists in the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/27/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It goes without saying that if and when a decision is made in Jerusalem or Washington to carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations the public will only learn of the decision in retrospect. All the same, over the last few weeks, it has been impossible to miss the fact that the Iranian nuclear program has become the subject of intense and ever increasing international scrutiny. This naturally gives rise to the impression that something is afoot.
