Six Years into the Iraq War: Can We Still Be a Superpower?

This week marks the sixth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an event some have called the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history. I won't repeat here the tragic statistics of American lives lost and damaged, Iraqi death tolls, and the stories of the millions of displaced who are still trying to pick up the pieces of their lives.

Nor will I recount the extraordinary failure of the media to question the rationale for war. To those who say they didn't see it coming, I can tell you that two of my colleagues, working from our Bainbridge Island, WA., office, with no access to hidden information or insider sources, provided compelling evidence that undercut every one of the rationales for war, well before the invasion began. That evidence was missing from the lopsided media accounts that dominated the mainstream press.

Today, we have the Obama administration in Washington and a Democratically controlled Congress in large part because the American people have so soundly repudiated this aggressive military posture.

But if we are clear, now, about the failure of the neoconservative agenda of global dominance, the question remains: How should the U.S. relate to the rest of the world? Will we try to hold on to our place as the world's sole superpower -- and if so, can we? Writing in the "Superpower: Get Over It" issue of YES! magazine, John Feffer said that's not what Americans want:

"Americans want their country to stop being the neighborhood bully and instead act like a good neighbor. In this, Americans are not giving voice to utopian aspirations. The polls in fact reflect a new realism. The nation's economy is flagging, our military is over-stretched, and our global legitimacy is exhausted. The public no longer wants to shoulder these various costs of empire."

In the year since Feffer wrote this piece, the global financial collapse has further undercut the capacity of U.S. taxpayers to continue pouring billions into weapons systems, two foreign wars, massive long-term medical needs of veterans, nuclear weapons programs, and, oh yeah, our 700-800 overseas military bases. And ironically, we are discovering that with "asymmetrical warfare," much of this military expenditure offers us plenty of opportunities to kill and destroy, but few opportunities to win the peace.

So, as Feffer describes, we face a choice of future roles in the world. We could insist on claiming the role of empire ...

"Burdened by debt, armed to the teeth, and isolated from the world, the United States would become the "sick man" of North America, as the Ottomans were once labeled in Europe. Like many failing empires, we would be all the more dangerous the weaker we got.

"Or the United States could try something unprecedented. We could turn our back on empire, much as Spain and Portugal did in the 1970s and the Soviet Union did in the late 1980s. But rather than waiting until the bitter end as these countries did, the United States could use its still considerable power to help create a more equitable world order that operates on a truly level playing field."

As we start into the seventh year in Iraq, and begin a military build up in Afghanistan, let's consider that second option -- that we gracefully let go of the empire role. In my December '08 blog, I laid out a five-point plan for doing this.

In these tough economic times, we could start by transferring the spending on budget-busting weapons systems to an investment in the super-efficiency, green energy, and sustainable transit projects that can create jobs now and improve our security by preparing us to live in a climate-constrained world. The Obama stimulus package is a good down payment, but we will have to make a sustained investment if we are to transfer to an economy that can provide lasting peace and prosperity.

Comments

[Dusty Moore]

I agree with your response that the war has been an economic disaster for the United States. However, your assumption that decreasing military spending and transferring investments into high-efficiency economic friendly energy and transportation projects, thus is attempt to ultimately solve the economic problems of the United States is cautionary. No matter what financial route we take, we will always be in debt, it will take more than one strategically thought out solution to pull America out of debt. Putting all of our hopes into one plan is futile. Once Obama’s plan may scratch the surface of this economic problem but it will take a variety of solutions to ultimately bring us out of this recession. Furthermore, and I believe decreasing military spending and stepping away from being the superpower to become a helping neighbor would be a bad investment for our country. Transfering spending and reducing military spending is not necessary. As of right now the country is currently at a $1.7 trillion dollar deficit; however, the war's projected costs is currently at $170 billion per year. Obama’s new spending plan indicates that the U.S. has the money available to dictate to other economic area’s to stimulate the economy. I think the nation’s debt should be the true concern as of right now, because no other country is willing to help fund the United States’ increasing deficit.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014579315
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014503041

[starrant]

I think you are right about the Iraq war being a disaster for the country, but I have to disagree with your assumption that with no Iraq War and no oversees empire, we would be able to all the problems on the home front. Right now with the Iraq War in the Obama's budget, we are running a $1.7 trillion deficit and the Iraq War only cost around $170 billion per year. So even without the war in Iraq we do have the money available to pay for all the programs you propose. The Congressional Budget office has pointed out that Obama would double the national debt in just under a decade. Recently the Chinese said they are worried about buying US debt, so where do you propose that we will get the money to pay for the doubling of the national debt? Instead we need to cut down on government and reduce the national debt.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014503041

[savanderson]

In this article, I think that it is extremely appropriate to say that the invasion of Iraq, six years ago, caused an economic disaster for the United States, but I respectfully disagree with the underlying assumption that the United States was ever able to be a superpower to the world. The United States may be far more advanced than other countries, however, that does not mean that the US should be and can be responsible for fixing other countries problems, as if we are the "superpower" of the world. The United States has their own problems, such as the economic disaster that the Iraq War has brought upon us, that we should be worried about fixing first, rather than helping other countries rebuild and better their economy. I think that the United States should become economically stable on their own, in order to help another country, if absolutely necessary, with their economical problems. If the US has economical problems on their own, who are we to give advice to another country on how to run their economy, when ours is slowly deteriorating.

[cfleig11]

Savaderson,I feel you have a valid argument, but make the assumption that the US is not a superpower and should only worry about our own problems.This statement is false and completely selfish.You must look at what a superpower is. Sebastian Johnson says it best in his article .The US is a "superpower" and countries look to us for help.With bases in countries and the strongest military,what else do we need to be a superpower?You do not see anyother country with bases in our nation.You do not see places like Japan or China with bases in say Australia.They are not superpowers like the United States.The US is wanted all over the world for help and always there to lend a helping hand.We have a duty to countries to help out even if our homefront is not in the best of shape.We KNOW as America we will rebuild as we have done it before.When you are strong, you help the weaker, even if it takes away from you, because you know you will rebuild.In years, US' economy will be back up, but moreso, the US will have helped another country build and become a democracy.The US is a superpower and serve as World Police and even big brother as we make sure countries are not taking advantage of weaker countries and that the weaker countries know someone is there looking out for them.

[cfleig11]

Sorry Savaderson the last link did not post..the link to Sebastian Johnsons article is . This will have information for you talking about the US being a "superpower" and why we should remain one.

[1differentdrummer]

Eleven months, Normandy to Berlin. What was the question?

[jollyelle]

Why isn't Israel's military spending mentioned in this article? It usually comes in as a close 2nd to the US
per capita spending.