Americans remain divided about the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. According to a recent Gallup poll, 53 percent consider the invasion of Iraq a mistake. A closer look shows a stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats. While only 30 percent of self-identified Republicans view the war as a mistake, a full 73 percent of Democrats believe that the United States should not have invaded. Similarly, a Washington Post poll found that 58 percent of Americans did not believe the Iraq War worth fighting, including 68 percent of Democrats but only 38 percent of Republicans.
Beyond poll numbers, the Iraq War has left a stain of distrust and disillusionment. Not only do Americans continue to mourn 4,486 fallen soldiers, but they have also lost faith in the government that sent them there. The revelation that Hussein did not in fact have weapons of mass destruction left many Americans feeling deceived, and the government’s resulting loss of credibility has curtailed future presidents’ ability to take pre-emptive military action.
As Harvard Professor Stephen Walt explains, “People have lost confidence in the ability of intelligence agencies to provide reliable information about threats to justify preventive action.” Furthermore, the resulting insurgency and brutal civil war severely depleted U.S. confidence in its ability to enforce successful regime change. “Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan have all reminded the national security establishment of the extraordinary difficulty of putting together an effective government once the existing government has collapsed.”
President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech notwithstanding, both American and world opinion have soured towards nation building, and the Obama Administration’s relatively cautious foreign policy reflects this attitude. As the Center for American Progress’s Dr. Lawrence Korb notes, “We’ve taken a much more defined cost-benefit analysis. … We recognize that we have the most powerful military in the world, but that the military cannot necessarily do everything.”
Will Iraq ever happen again? In other words, will the U.S. or any powerful nation ever deploy another army in a foreign country, topple the local government, and attempt to erect a new one in its place? We know that states influence smaller regions that involve key interests or compelling moral conflicts. The French campaign against Malian terrorists and American drone strikes in Yemen have continued this tendency. However, Operation Iraqi Freedom unfolded on a much larger scale. It brought not just drones and special forces, but ground troops, tanks, constitution drafting, and vast reconstruction projects. Will an industrialized power ever undertake a similar task again?
The short answer is yes.
Invasion, occupation, and regime change are historically common. Modern discourse tends to focus on the Vietnam War and European colonialism, but the phenomenon of one state invading and occupying another occurs throughout recorded history. From the American reconstruction of Japan, to the Napoleonic Wars, all the way back to Alexander the Great, powerful nations have always invaded other countries and imposed their will upon them. Much has changed- war has become less common and the world no longer accepts blatantly aggressive conquerors. However, no evidence exists to suggest that history has suddenly changed. The tragedy of Vietnam and the more recent debacle in Somalia did not deter the United States from invading Iraq. Different times have different priorities, new leaders rise, and new crises demand decisive responses. America’s senior political leaders had grown up during the Vietnam War, yet most of them (including many Democrats) voted to invade Iraq. As Professor Walt dryly admits, “Amnesia is one of our specialties.” Dr. Korb describes the “Icarus Syndrome”— the systematic forgetting of previous historical lessons. Each generation assumes leadership with new habits and values. Therefore, as generations past have done, so will future leaders reach for the same heights and suffer the same falls.
However, the longer answer is that Iraq will not repeat itself right now and probably will not do so for a while.
The Obama Administration’s current refusal to send ground troops into Syria demonstrates a desire to avoid the mistakes of the recent past. The government lacks confidence in its ability to intervene without entering a quagmire, nor does the American public support such action. While stopping the Syrian government’s slaughter of its own people is tempting, many Americans fear the complications of direct involvement. No one wants to clean up and rebuild Syria once Assad falls, since the U.S. just spent the last ten years doing this in Iraq. No matter how brutal or dangerous the current dictator, the regime nevertheless plays a stabilizing role. Its cronies and secret police may be the only barriers against ethnic cleansing or the revival of centuries-old feuds. With so many pent up tensions and conflicts, as Professor Walt says, “You remove the state- all bets are off.” Dr. Korb believes, “Had it not been for Iraq, it’s much more likely we would have been involved with Syria.”
The United States will continue its current strategy of using precision strikes and arming proxies, instead of sending armies. Walt believes that, “We will do it in very small, surgical doses where we focus on a narrow set of targets.” Rather than intervene directly in Syria, the U.S. has armed and aided the rebels. The United States has similarly supported the French in Libya. Korb compared our current attitude to policy in Cambodia and Afghanistan following the Vietnam War. Instead of deploying ground forces, the U.S. assumed a limited role and supported local allies. Despite the current controversy over drone strikes and moral pressure to protect the Syrian people, Obama’s current strategy has successful avoided major commitments like Vietnam and Iraq, and sets an important precedent for policy in the near future.
The consequences of this restraint transcend today’s politics. Great power intervention and occupation have dominated history. Just as Roman hegemony created a Pax Romana and European colonialism shaped the developing world, so have U.S. money and soldiers helped define the global system. In the past century, two of the world’s four largest economies- Germany and Japan- expanded in part because of American military occupation, economic aid, and political interference. We can debate the moral pros and cons of these interventions, but no one can doubt their material significance. What will the world be like with a restrained superpower? Will U.S. caution last or will future crises force its hand?
Photo Credit: Flickr
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.