During the Sixties, Andre Malraux, a famous French writer, then president Charles De Gaulle's minister of cultural affairs, asked Chou En-lai: "What do you think about the legacy of the French Revolution?". "It is too soon to answer" replied the Chinese leader. Therefore we should think that it could be premature to make an accurate assessment of the Iraq war just five years after its beginning. But at least we could try to do it, and some preliminary observations are already possible.
First and foremost, we had the confirmation that the world is not unipolar anymore. Of course, it is neither multipolar due to the discrepancy of power between the United States and every other country. However, within a unipolar world, the "hyperpower", to quote Hubert Vedrine, would have no difficulty to rule a medium-sized country with 25 million inhabitants, looted by more than 30 years of erratic dictatorship, three major wars and 12 years of a tough embargo policy.
Unfortunately for Washington, and contrary to President George W. Bush's beliefs, military power is not a guarantee of power. US military and technological supremacy has assured an easy and quick success for the GIs.
In two weeks, the Iraqi army was totally defeated and Saddam Hussain's regime unseated. And so what? Military success could turn out to be a strategic failure. Nowadays, neither Iraq nor Baghdad is really under the US army control. The country and the capital are not safe for American soldiers, even if the death toll has been decreasing since some months now.
Security is far from being granted. It would be impossible for any US soldier to walk safely in Baghdad without being heavily protected. Iraq is not a new Vietnam because historical conditions are different (no more Cold War, no more struggle by proxies between superpowers) but Iraq is a new morass.
Senator Barack Obama of the Democratic party had promised to get out of it as soon as possible. Republican Senator and presidential nominee, John MacCain, seems to think that staying there for another 100 years is an acceptable option.
The Iraq war was supposed to show the world America's power and to deter any contestation of the American supremacy. Actually, it showed its inability to earn a real victory. Peace is still not in sight. The fearless US military force has failed to prove its usefulness. It has perhaps even misguided the White House which has been over-confident in its military force. When your only tool is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail.
Strategic failure
Strategic failure is coupled with moral failure. The US launched a war without legal authorisation. They violated both international law and the United Nations charter. A majority of governments opposed their decision. Even in countries whose governments supported it, the public opinions expressed their disagreement and anger. Washington thought that success would soften it. But no there was no success. On the top of that, the US armed forces' behaviour from Abu Ghraib to "collateral damages" (i.e. the killing by accident of civilians) had infuriated the Iraqi population. Had the US army left Iraq a few weeks after its military victory, American soldiers would be highly welcomed now. But the then "liberation army" turned out to become an "occupation army" and there is nobody who is eager to support a long term military occupation. The result is crystal clear. Never in history has the American prestige been so weak. Never in history has the US been so unpopular all around the world. Every opinion poll, done by a US or a foreign institute gives similar results. The US hyperpower is hyper unpopular. And Bush, thanks to the Iraq War, would certainly be remembered as one of the worst US president in History.
Niccolo Machiavelli used to say that for the "prince", it is better to be feared than to be loved. We should correct him in modern times, when soft power is so important: it is as higher necessity to be loved than to be feared. But now, the US are less feared than five years ago and much less loved. We are not talking about respect and credibility, both severely damaged by lies regarding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be the reason for going to war. They did not exist and the US leaders knew it. When we have in mind that an impeachment procedure has been launched against Bill Clinton for having lied about his affair with Monica Lewinski, we could wonder what is most important and more damageable for the US national interest and the world security ? To lie about a personal misbehaviour, or to launch a war with false justifications ?
That war was a disaster. We just do not know how deep it is. According to the White House, the cost of Iraq war was assessed in 2003 to be about $60 billion. Now according to estimates, this cost could be in the range of $600 billions to $5 trillion.
Iranian case
Non proliferation is far from making progress, as we witness it with the Iranian case. Terrorism is not rolling back but is rather soaring, both in the Middle East and in the Western world. Has the division between the Muslim and Western worlds ever been so wide? Democracy is not exactly a work in progress.
For the time being, there is a main winner of Iraq War: it is Iran, which emerged as a regional power and has more leverage than before. And in Iran the hardliners have been reinforced against the moderates. It was certainly not the goal but it is the result. The next US president will have a hard task to mend all this mess.
Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques). He has published or edited more than 40 books dealing with international relations, nuclear deterrence and disarmament, European security and French international policy.
