War with Iraq has now begun. And while no leader should expect wars to go smoothly, it is very likely that the U.S. military will perform well, that Saddam Hussein's army will fall apart quickly and that many Iraqis will welcome American troops as liberators. Moreover, it also seems likely that troops will discover evidence that Hussein has been concealing the means to produce chemical and biological weapons.
All of which makes American military action perhaps defensible, and even rational -- but not necessarily wise. The truth is that invading Iraq will commit the United States to the path of empire -- though most Americans have likely not considered the gravity of this commitment. In the long run, this war will normalize the use of force as the chief means of carrying out U.S foreign-policy objectives. Such a policy is bound to increase insecurity at home while failing to achieve stability abroad. And, in the end, it could make America into a very different country indeed.
On its face, a war to remove Saddam Hussein is not unjust. As Richard Butler, the former head of the United Nations weapons-inspections team, has pointed out, Hussein has mounted a "determined and diabolical" campaign to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, Butler has said, Hussein's regime "has the worst human-rights record since Hitler's Germany." That Bush has been unable to array a broader international coalition against such a reprehensible dictator is a strong indictment of this administration's public diplomacy. (Of course, the lack of a broad coalition willing to deal forcefully with Hussein also suggests that some of America's allies are guilty of wishful thinking on this issue.)
But as the administration has been openly acknowledging in recent weeks, regime change in Iraq is not the main point. The United States intends to knock over a relatively weak state in order to send a message to stronger ones that might someday challenge our global dominance. The bombs that fall on Baghdad will be aimed at least in part at leaders in Tehran, Riyadh, Damascus, Beijing and Pyongyang.
This is pure imperialist doctrine, without any real pretense of self-defense. As Andrew Bacevich argues in his recent book, American Empire, such military interventions "reflect a single-minded determination to extend and perpetuate American political, economic, and cultural hegemony on a global scale."
Peace protesters may have exhibited their fair share of naïvete, anti-Semitism and simple dislike for the United States. But their real opposition lies in their misgivings over America's push for global hegemony -- and they are right to be concerned. There is, for instance, good reason to believe that the Bush security strategy of ruling the world by fear will backfire. Rather than disarming or being cowed by a display of American power, odious regimes, such as North Korea's leaders, are instead rushing to try to acquire nuclear weapons. Plus, the war in Iraq is likely to help -- rather than hinder -- al-Qaeda's recruiting.
But the perils of an imperial policy are greatest at home. Authentic democracies thrive on open debate, the authority of reason and the perceived legitimacy of the nation's ends. Under a foreign policy that relies heavily on the use of military force, the power of the state and of the president will grow. Greater secrecy and the muting of public debate will ensue. Dimly visible down this path is a probable showdown, circa 2025 or so, with China for world supremacy. In this regard, China's recent decision to embark on an ambitious new space program shouldn't escape notice.
Neglecting the home front is a typical warning sign of imperial overstretch. The American public has been told that the map of the Middle East may be reshaped but that the consumer-driven "American way of life" need not be altered. Despite a thin veneer of supply-side flimflam, it appears that the president's domestic economic policy is in fact his war policy. This is risky territory.
The right argues that the role of world leadership has been thrust upon us, and that it would be naive and dangerous not to respond. The left asks, What's the fuss? We've been behaving like an empire -- in Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile and Panama -- for years.
Both are wrong. The United States has engaged in preemptive and unilateral military action before, but never of this scope, in this combustible a region and with these imperial goals.
If U.S. actions are new, the fears they justifiably raise among skeptics are old. John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, said that "America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Adams' sentiment is still on target. We fight an elective war in Iraq at grave risk to the domestic character of the country we call home.
Leif Wellington Haase is a fellow at The Century Foundation in New York City.
