How Iraq War Has Hurt U.S. Diplomatically

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post is a columnist who seems to be somewhat sympathetic to the Bush Administration. Therefore, we were struck by a column that appears in the Post dated Tuesday, November 20, 2007, in which she points out the ways in which the Iraq War has damaged the diplomatic efforts of the U.S. She starts off by noting that militarily things seem better in Iraq, but she then goes on to state that most Americans don't realize what this war has done to our standing in the world. This is a quote from her column:

Though I don't especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren't improving in Iraq -- it seems they are, at least for the moment -- but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What's worse is the fact that -- however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now -- our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.

When America was first formed and for about a hundred years thereafter we pretty much tried to influence the rest of the world by example, not by military force. Even after we began to emerge as a world power, and fought the war against the Spanish in the 1890s, we were usually reluctant to throw our weight around. We only got into WWI when a ship was attacked and Americans were killed. Then, after that war, we ignored the League of Nations and concentrated on ourselves. We only got into WWII after Pearl Harbor, and might not have even declared war on Germany and Italy except they declared war on us.

After WWII, though, we became convinced that we had to be involved with the rest of the world. So we took the lead in establishing the United Nations, helped rebuild Europe with the Marshall Plan, conducted on the most benign occupations by a conquering power in world history in Japan, and helped form N.A.T.O. to counteract Soviet expansionism. In most of those efforts, however, we worked in concert with others and didn't try to go it alone.

Bush decided on a different approach. Unlike his own father in the first Gulf War, and unlike Clinton in Kosovo. he decided, along with Tony Blair, to pretty much go it alone in fighting the Iraqis. He pressured the U.N. and Congress to support him and invaded a country that had done nothing to the U.S.

His approach has been a disaster. We have alienated our natural allies. We have appeared hypocritical to the rest of the world. We have violated our own ideals. We have sacrificed priceless lives and over half a trillion dollars in the sands of Iraq. We find ourselves in a situation which has no easy way out, and in which no matter what we do, our own self-interest will be jeopardized.

Meanwhile Bush and his supporters will see columns like Applebaum's as weak and her arguments as meritless. They will continue to see what Bush has done as being both right and necessary. They will continue to enable him to drag down America's standing in the world.