The Failure of American Strategy
America is to become not
just "the only superpower," but a "hyperpower"
which no one can hope to resist. China is to be cowed by an arms race
she cannot afford; non-state elements will fall to American Special
Forces; the U.N. will be a tool of American world dominance.
By William S. Lind
CNSNews.com Commentary
Saddam Hussein appears to be a better strategist than the Bush
administration, when it comes to connecting himself to as many power
centers as possible, while isolating his enemy from as many power
centers as possible.
Since the U.N. weapons inspectors renewed their work in Iraq, Saddam
has managed to forge de facto alliances against war with France,
Germany and Russia. He appears to be developing a positive connection
with the inspectors themselves, with the U.N., and possibly with a
majority of members of the U.N. Security Council.
In contrast, the Bush administration has isolated itself from several
of its oldest allies, provoked a serious split in NATO, and left
itself very much on the defensive in the face of an inspections
process that continues to find no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
-- and thus no causus belli for the U.S.
Is this simply ineptitude, or is something larger going on here? I
suggest the latter.
For some time, elements in the Bush administration have been looking
far beyond Iraq. They have spoken with increasing openness about
re-making the entire Middle East, installing "democratic"
governments that would be friendly not only to the United States but
to Israel. (I put "democratic" in quotes because genuinely
democratic elections in most Middle Eastern countries would put
radical Islamist regimes in power, which is not the outcome the new
Wilsonians have in mind.)
America is to become not just "the only superpower," but a
"hyperpower" which no one can hope to resist. China is to be
cowed by an arms race she cannot afford; non-state elements will fall
to American Special Forces; the U.N. will be a tool of American world
dominance.
America will be the new Britain, perhaps the new Rome. Or, more
likely, the new Spain. The Spanish analogy is not one most Americans
will know, nor one the new Wilsonians will much care for. But it may
prove apt.
The quest to create the "universal monarchy," which was the
earlier term for "the only superpower," began in earnest
with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, the father of King Philip II of
Spain. Charles ruled virtually all of Europe, except France. His
kingdoms included Spain, which had the first true world empire. Fueled
with the gold and silver of the New World and possessing an army so
successful that it went unbeaten for more than a century, Spain
offered Charles and then Philip the potential of ruling the world.
You may recall that Armada business, when King Philip decided to end
the impudence of an upstart island, England, and its Protestant queen,
Elizabeth I. That did not go quite according to plan -- somewhat like
our current business in Afghanistan -- but no matter; so rich was
Spain that when the Armada was destroyed, Philip just built another
one.
What finally stopped Hapsburg Spain and, later, France under Louis XIV
and Napoleon and Germany under Hitler from establishing the universal
monarchy was a fundamental characteristic of the international state
system: Whenever one nation attempts to attain world dominance, it
pushes everyone else into a coalition against it.
That dynamic, not any love for Saddam, is what is behind German and
French opposition to the Bush Administration's plan for war with Iraq.
That is what is drawing others, including Russia, into supporting the
French and the Germans.
The Dutch ambassador to the United States was recently quoted in the
Washington Post as saying he is concerned about a "monopoly of
power without checks and balances. Self-assertiveness and an arrogance
of power, that is a troubling thing."
In fact, the Dutch ambassador is wrong: There are checks and balances,
and we are now seeing them start to work. The failure of American
strategy, and America's growing self-isolation, are guaranteed so long
as Washington aspires to world hegemony.
The very nature of the international state system assures our quest
for universal monarchy will fail, the same way all have failed. And
our "unbeatable" military will find itself beaten, just as
the Spanish army was beaten at Rocroi, by someone it thought would be
a pushover.
The real question is not whether the American drive for world hegemony
will succeed; it will not. The question is why we are attempting it in
the first place.
( William S. Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural
Conservatism.)
http://www.cnsnews.com
