Posted on: Sunday, June 15, 2003

COMMENTARY
Doubts, unease remain after victory in Iraq

By Jon Davidann

The news these days is filled with the story of our victory in Iraq. The music of triumphalism is so loud and persistent that one wonders if its purpose is to drown out the doubts and unease that the war in Iraq has also left with us.

It is perhaps time to give a more sober assessment of where the United States stands after the war in Iraq.

Yes, we defeated our enemy and our military performed well. Yes, Saddam is gone and the Iraqi people have a chance at a better life, although there is no guarantee of this. But any ledger has debits as well as credits; the decision for war has a positive and negative side. Perhaps our biggest loss after the war in Iraq has been the loss of certainty in the way the world works.

Since World War II, Americans led an international system where colonies became nations and military force, when used, needed the sanction of international law and institutions. Even in the 1990s when the American military was used against Iraq in Kuwait and against Serbia in Kosovo, these interventions had the sanction of international law and the United Nations Security Council.

After the war in Iraq, these earlier interventions seem quaint and innocent by comparison. The current Bush administration, by committing to a policy of pre-emption and regime change anywhere in the world, has crossed an important boundary.

First, no longer can we consider sovereignty sacrosanct. Saddam's evil ranked higher than Iraq's sovereignty. And the Bush administration decided to bypass the United Nations Security Council to invade Iraq. Both these actions could mar the legitimacy of the international system the U.S. helped develop after World War II.

Respect for national integrity and international laws and institutions was a cornerstone of that system. In the post-Iraq war world, these two commitments have been undeniably eroded.

This new reality is at the root of an unspoken but palpable unease in the United States. If the current Bush administration's approach to international affairs continues, its claim of gaining protection against terrorism — dubious in Iraq since no weapons of mass destruction have been found — must be balanced against the loss of the certainty of the post-World War II international system.

We will, however, have gained a new world order of unprecedented American dominance. With power comes responsibility, and at some point the American people should have an open and extended debate about whether they want to shoulder the burden and costs of this new world order.

Jon Davidann teaches American history at Hawai'i Pacific University. He lives in Kailua with his wife, Beth, son, Eli, and dog, Leiku.