Bush's Bad Foreign Policy

Unilateralism and remaking the world don't mix

Steve Chapman from the February 2004 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

The obvious lesson of 9/11 is that when you are attacked repeatedly by a capable, dangerous, and unscrupulous enemy -- as the United States had been in the 1990s by Al Qaeda -- you can't afford to ignore it. The threat posed by Al Qaeda was not exactly a secret before 9/11, but it was never taken as seriously as it should have been by President Clinton, by the American people, or by Bush in the first eight months of his term. When someone declares war on you, declining to fight is not an option. After 9/11, Bush recognized that.

But he also extracted a broader and dangerously erroneous lesson. He concluded that the United States has to attack its enemies before they attack us, long before the potential threat ripens. He declared a new doctrine, asserting that "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." In addition, he embraced the ambitious idea promoted by advisers like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz that the United States could best protect its security and honor its values by acting vigorously to spread democracy abroad. His handling of Iraq wedded the two policies. Invasion would erase the possibility that Saddam would someday endanger us with weapons of mass destruction and allow the creation of a democratic state that would stimulate liberalization throughout the Middle East.

The actual outcome has not been quite so congenial. Daalder and Lindsay think Bush stumbled because he was "blind to the limits inherent in the unilateral exercise" of American power. In fact, they say, "Bush's war demonstrated the importance of basing American foreign policy on a meld of power and cooperation." But did it really? The real flaw in his policy was its confusion of relative power with absolute power.

America certainly has the military might to defeat any country on earth. But there are limits to what it can do beyond that. The invasion and occupation of Iraq would be only modestly easier and less expensive if Bush had mobilized a broad coalition of countries to help. To match past nation building efforts, half a million troops would be needed in Iraq, which is more than any conceivable coalition could provide.

Ruling over an alien people in the 21st century is an uphill struggle, regardless of how many allies you have. What we are likely to face in Iraq is similar to what the British confronted in trying to maintain their empire: The price of the undertaking eventually exceeded its value.

Daalder and Lindsay think the president's worst error is his unilateralism, arguing that the "fundamental premise of Bush's revolution -- that America's security rested on an America unbound -- was profoundly mistaken." There is something to this argument. But unilateralism was not Bush's invention. Bill Clinton also offended many other governments by balking at collective action on matters ranging from global warming to the international ban on land mines, and Ronald Reagan often clashed with our closest allies despite the looming Soviet threat.

In Bush's case, the go-it-alone approach was a mistake for two main reasons. One is that it blinded him to realities that other governments understood, such as the feasibility of corralling Saddam through containment and deterrence. The other is that it conflicted with his hugely ambitious agenda. A nation that wants to exert control over events in every corner of the world needs lots of allies in the effort. As Daalder and Lindsay contend, it can't afford to alienate the world.

But Bush's greatest mistake was refusing to acknowledge the limits of what even the world's sole superpower can do. As the debacle in Iraq has shown, the costs of such intervention can escalate rapidly, the benefits can prove dubious, and the options for escape can be highly unsatisfactory. Whatever happens in Iraq, the nasty aftermath will almost certainly dampen public support for new military adventures.

That's why the Bush "revolution" in foreign policy (fortunately) looks like a short-lived aberration rather than a lasting template. The United States may be powerful enough to act without tying its actions to the cooperation of other governments. In some cases, such latitude can be liberating. But if you were looking for a phrase to describe the situation in Iraq, "America unbound" wouldn't be it.