superpower or its president
Aug 26th 2010
WHEN Barack Obama confirms next week that all American combat forces
have left Iraq, you can be sure of one thing. He will not repeat the
triumphalism of George Bush's suggestion seven years ago that
America's mission there has been accomplished. Mr Obama always
considered this a "dumb" war, and events have proved him largely
right. America and its allies may have rid the Middle East of a
bloodstained dictator, but Saddam Hussein's vaunted weapons of mass
destruction turned out to be a chimera and the cost in American and
especially Iraqi lives has been hideous. Iraq, it is true, is no
longer a dictatorship. Thanks in part to Mr Bush's lonely refusal in
2007 to heed the calls to cut and run, the sectarian bloodletting that
followed the invasion has abated. But the country's new democracy
remains chronically insecure (see article), which is one reason why
some 50,000 American "support" troops are to stay behind to shore it
up.
The wrong turn
To many Americans, the misadventure in Iraq has come to symbolise a
broader wrong turn America made after Osama bin Laden assaulted it on
September 11th nine years ago. Nearly six out of ten Americans now say
that they oppose even Mr Obama's "good" war—the one against al-Qaeda
and the Taliban. An America that is bleeding economically at home,
with unemployment stuck at nearly 10% and debts as tall as the eye can
see, is losing confidence in its ability, and perhaps in its need, to
shape events in far-flung regions such as Central Asia and the Middle
East. Even in an age of austerity America still towers above
all-comers in military power, as well it should given its annual
defence spending of $700 billion, almost as much as the rest of the
world put together (see article). But the past decade has laid bare
the limits of high-tech power. Whizz-bang technology enabled America
to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq in the twinkle of an eye with
negligible losses. Subduing them has been harder. Of the 2m Americans
who have served in the two wars over the past decade, some 40,000 have
been wounded and more than 5,000 killed.
Related items
Iraq's uncertain future: The reckoning
Aug 26th 2010
The cost of weapons: Defence spending in a time of austerity
Aug 26th 2010
Lexington: The president and the peace process
Aug 26th 2010
Given all this, it is a credit to Mr Obama that he has resisted the
temptation to follow the popular mood and turn his focus entirely
inward. In his gut Mr Obama may well care more about nation-building
at home than he does about exercising superpower abroad. But if so it
is an instinct he has curbed.
Mr Obama plainly has a keener sense than Mr Bush did of American
limits. At West Point last December he cited the cautious example of
Eisenhower and told cadets that he refused to set foreign-policy goals
that exceeded America's means. He has made a point of changing
America's tone and body language, reaching out to the Muslim world in
Cairo, offering "engagement" to Iran, bowing to China's Hu Jintao and
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. The Republicans accuse him of
apologising for America and kowtowing to its rivals. They are right to
say that his overtures have had mixed results. The Chinese snubbed him
at the Copenhagen climate summit, the Iranians spurned his hand and
much of the goodwill he earned in the Muslim world after his Cairo
speech has evaporated during the subsequent year of stalemate in
Palestine.
At times, in short, his conciliatory tone has been read as weakness.
But he has notched up successes, too, such as resetting relations with
Russia partly to tighten sanctions on Iran. Moreover, his deeds have
been tougher than his words. That speech at West Point was the one in
which he announced that he was sending reinforcements to Afghanistan
in spite of the war's unpopularity at home. Paying attention to
China's sensitivities did not stop him selling arms to Taiwan or
eventually meeting the Dalai Lama. America has been working harder
than it has for many years on buttressing its alliances in South-East
Asia, regardless of Chinese complaints. And although Mr Obama fumbled
his initial foray into Arab-Israeli peacemaking—he picked a fight with
Israel on settlements and then seemed to back down—he started working
on this conflict earlier in his term than some presidents, and appears
intent on persevering. Next week he will inaugurate a new bout of
direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, chaperoned by
Egypt's president and Jordan's king (see article).
Mr Obama has had his failures, but this record of effort should at
least give the lie to the proposition that he is neglecting America's
interests in the world or shirking its unique responsibilities. In
that sense, Mr Obama is a less "transformational" president than his
talk about a newly multipolar world would have you think. He does not
subscribe to the neocon dream that America can intimidate every foe
and expect the whole world to adopt its values. He has worked hard to
enlist the help of international institutions and other countries. But
he also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some
global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and
diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the
fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between
Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb
and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
Still indispensable
Even that abbreviated list is a heavy burden for a war-weary country
struck by its worst recession since the second world war. Many
Americans would like the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq to
signal the beginning of the end of America's overall embroilment in
the benighted regions of the world. They look with understandable envy
on rising powers such as China and India that have devoted the past
decade to the serious business of becoming rich. The mistake of Iraq
has strengthened the instinct against foreign adventures. But it is no
less of a mistake to imagine that the dangers of terrorism,
proliferation and war will simply vanish if America were now to walk
away from all the bad places. If America does not take on the task of
containing such threats, who else will, or can? For all the
difficulties at home, the fact remains that the biggest gainer from a
strong America abroad is America itself. Whatever his gut tells him,
Mr Obama seems to understand that.