Not since the height of the British Empire has any single
country so thoroughly dominated the globe. The United States is
far-and-away the strongest technological, financial and military
power in the world, but to wield this power without any
responsibility is absurd.
We cannot treat the world as we did during the Cold War and be
surprised no one is balancing us out. There is more to being the
sole superpower than that.
Perhaps this is why news this week is sending shivers up my
spine. In newspapers, the Senate is starting to take steps to end
the Iraq war by demanding that President Bush outline his exit
strategy. This, on the surface, looks like excellent news.
But on the next page we see Bush telling China that it should be
more like Taiwan and inform North Korea as to what it may and may
not do, and suddenly my head is filled with horrible premonitions
too ugly to put into print.
I simultaneously find hope for our future in the Middle East and
dread for our future in Asia. It may be premature, but I believe
it’s time to look past this war for a moment and examine what
it means because it is the most dangerous precedent the U.S. has
ever set.
The weapons of mass destruction did not exist; our stated
rationale did not exist.
But let us suppose that they did for argument’s sake.
Let’s say Saddam Hussein had chemical or nuclear weapons. Is
that grounds enough to invade a sovereign country? Is that grounds
enough to go to war?
Iraq did not attack us and did not support the people who
attacked us. Iraq was not planning to attack us, according to
columnist Robert Scheer in “The Big Lie Technique” for
The Nation. There was no direct threat. What makes this war so
dangerous, so globally unpopular, so overwhelmingly terrifying is
that it is based not on hard facts or immediate threats but on the
possibility of threat someday in the future.
And if we start invading countries based on the hypothetical
possibility of threat, then the U.S. is going to be at war for the
rest of our lives. Why not Iran or North Korea? Hey, why not
Columbia? Those drug-addled mercenaries have had it coming for
years.
The U.S. cannot afford to be this Machiavellian. Unless we are
totally isolationist, the best-case scenario for a country in our
position is a kind of benevolent policeman, obviously looking out
for its own interests but at the same time keeping tabs over the
conflicts upon which we could have some mediating influence. And
the U.S. has played this role ““ in the first Gulf War,
Somalia and Serbia, for instance ““ instilling a crude form of
Pax Americana in which the western world and its allies could live
comfortably.
What we cannot do is abuse the power we have. If we keep using
our unchallenged power this way, it won’t be unchallenged for
long.
I understand the desire to be absolutely safe, but as soon as we
can agree that kind of security is impossible, the better off
we’re all going to be. It’s a fool’s quest, and
what worries me is that this is the path we seem to be walking.
It is neither feasible nor wise to try to rid the world of our
enemies. Yes, America is (a little) safer now that Saddam is
disempowered.
But weigh that against the global resentment and the American
soldier and Iraqi-civilian loss of life. Is it worth it? Absolutely
not. The U.S. cannot go to war with countries because of possible
threat. We have already had a taste of what happens when we
try.
The world Bush is forging is not the one in which he will have
to live. We, the youth, are the ones who will have to deal with
what is being created. For our own sakes, I hope we can learn from
our mistakes.
Are you an alarmist as well? Let O’Bryan know at
jobryan@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.