For the last year, the Bush administration has been striving to mobilize
the world on Iraq, and it has finally succeeded. Everyone is coming
together--against us.
The United States is finding out that being the world's only
superpower--or "hyperpower," as we're known, pejoratively, in
Europe--can be far less pleasant than we might have expected. Oscar
Wilde once said of George Bernard Shaw that "he has no enemies, and
none of his friends like him." That's the current plight of the
U.S. We're powerful enough that no one wants to become our target, and
powerful enough that no one wishes us too well.
President Bush has shown a knack for helping old rivals find common
ground. The French and the Germans spent most of the last century
killing each other, restraining each other, or eyeing each other warily,
but in recent weeks they've stood shoulder to shoulder against
Washington. The Russians and Chinese, who are normally about as
brotherly as Cain and Abel, have joined forces to resist Bush's
policies.
All of these countries, you may remember, were firmly on our side in the
war on Al Qaeda. But thanks to his obsession with Iraq, Bush has managed
to turn sympathy into resentment. Three of those four nations have
vetoes on the UN Security Council, which they could use to prevent us
from getting a resolution authorizing a march on Baghdad.
The administration, not content with the distance that has opened
between us and these onetime allies, is working hard to widen the rift.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the carping from backwaters
like Berlin and Paris: "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and
France. I don't. I think that's old Europe." Of course they were
also a central component of the alliance that won the Cold War, but who
remembers ancient history?
Rumsfeld insisted we have support from other countries on the continent.
Like Italy! He forgot to mention that in relatively friendly countries
such as Britain, our popularity is declining. In Poland, long a bastion
of pro-American sentiment, just 24 percent of the public supports a war
against Saddam Hussein--and that's only if inspectors find weapons of
mass destruction.
The U.S. can certainly fight and win in Iraq on our own. But we may end
up wishing we hadn't. The war will be harder and more costly if
countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, lacking the political cover of a
UN resolution, limit their cooperation. Even Goliath could have used
some help.
That will be doubly true in the aftermath of war. Iraq is a big, complex
country with a lively history of internal strife, and occupying it
promises to be the most fun the American military has had since
Mogadishu.
In the first place, we may have to cope with uprisings and bloodlettings
among groups that have been oppressed by the central government and
would like to escape its control. In the second place, our efforts to
keep peace and order could provoke some Iraqis to turn their fury on
us--in a repeat of Somalia.
If we launch the war over the objections of our friends, we may find
none of them eager to put boots on the ground to help with
reconstruction. So we could end up with 100,000 American soldiers pinned
down indefinitely, undertaking the type of nation-building that Bush
used to reject.
But nation-building may be the least of our burdens. A large force of
U.S. soldiers and civilians stationed in the Middle East will furnish
the equivalent of an all-you-can-eat buffet for Osama bin Laden.
(Remember him?) Postwar Iraq promises to be a magnet for Al Qaeda
operatives eager to resume the fight against America. If we can't
prevent terrorist attacks in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait,
imagine what we can expect in Iraq.
Making the problem worse is that the Middle East has a lot of terrorist
organizations that have been preoccupied with Israel in the past, but
may decide to use this opportunity to bloody its chief ally. Factions of
groups like Hamas and Hezbollah may begin targeting Americans with a
vengeance--and not just in Iraq.
Some of those groups, in the chaos of postwar Iraq, may get their hands
on Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons. Instead of
advancing the fight against terror, going into Iraq may only plunge us
into a wider conflict, while making us more vulnerable.
In that case, we'll have a far greater need for allies in the war on
terror. Any idea where we could find some?
Source: Copyright © 2003, Chicago
Tribune
