I do not think anyone could have confidently predicted the present state of Iraq when Saddam’s army was defeated. The speed of the defeat and the initial euphoria gave a false sense of confidence that caught the US with its pants down over planning to transition Iraq back to the people. The transition that eventuated is the failure, and as long as US troops remain in Iraq and the Iraqi government is perceived as a US proxy, elements hostile to the US and/or Shiites will ensure that nothing is ever resolved. Not helping either is the Iraqi leader’s Shiite leanings and his recent engagements with Iran – this would make Sunnis seethe with rage.

Leaving aside the WMD, I suspect that Bush’s main goal in invading Iraq was to close the file: remember that substantial numbers of US troops had been occupying southern Iraq since 1991. However, Bush’s call for more troops is to fight fire with fire and won’t work. Dialogue with all interested parties and a complete US troop withdrawl are the only hope of lasting peace. Hopefully this is the approach the US will move to, and it is more likely as increasing numbers of Americans oppose the war, in addition to Bush’s recent lame duck presidential status.

Paul,

Good article. Let’s put on a wider angle lens.

America is an interesting study:

Because we live decades, not centuries ‘what is’ can be distorted. No, doubt the US is THE superpower of superpowers, politically, economically and militarily.

The situation of the American Ascendancy, in large measure, started during during the nineteenth century and crystallised in the early twentieth century with roots in earlier History.

Politics:

Its birth was leveraged from a desire for independence from British. In the Revolutionary War colonies rallied under the ideologies of French progressive thinkers. Herein, it is curious Lincoln saw the maintenance “The Union” preferable to ending slavery, which the British had achieved long beforehand. In this frame, the political Lincoln was not a clone of his well-honed television and patriotic image: The notion of preserving The Union over allowing the Southern states to leave secede was counter to French progressive thinking. Fact, a political solution trumped an ideological surface image. The Emancipation Proclamation was not the US centre stone.

Economics:

England, historically, entered the Industrial revolution, before the US colonies or nation. However, its social strata were fixed around monarchism, aristocracy and gentry (and still is to some extent (Queen, House of Lords, titles). This system was the Land as its locus, not commerce, not industry. The poorer peasant classes were pushed of the Land by the re-structuring associated with the Enclosure Acts, which created the situation were read of in Dickens. The landed leisure class (Veblen) would have little to do with “dirty” industry and commerce.

The pioneering American state, under its Manifest Destiny; to conquer the Northern American continent; were willing to engage in entrepreneurial commerce, not only agriculture. Also, it borrowed, from Germany the idea, that, corporations might be best run by the most capable (employees) not just family members.

Moreover, industrial capitalism and reformed Banking systems funded the best ideas of excellent inventors, c. 1880-1920. Herein, America prospered by willingly engaging in “dirty” commerce, Germanic management systems (non-familial management), and fostering industrial capitalism.

[More to come. I WILL come back and tether to your article/posits. Space problem.]

Good piece, Paul. You might recall that Bush the Elder wrote in his autobiography that the reason he did not invade Iraq in 1991 was that he could not construct a successful exit strategy. Pity there wasn't a father-and-son D&M about it all.

Don Aitkin

For me the rhetoric of ‘building democracy’ is perhaps the most disturbing part of the whole justification for war (and not just war in Iraq). As cited in this article, not only was it used to justify this war but it is also a major underpinning of the American mythos of the ‘moral use of military power’. American intellectuals never tire of patting themselves on the back for their success in ‘exporting democracy’ following the end of WW2.

However, a deeper look into their claims suggests a different story. Ignore, for the moment, the essentially contested nature of the word democracy and focus only on their claims of success: Germany and Japan.

Prior to rise of the Nazi-party, Germany was a democracy. While the success of the Weimar Republic can be debated, it established the basis for a democratic Germany and would have been fresh in the minds of Germans who lived through the terror of the Nazis. American reasserted a system in a country that understood and appreciated it.

Japan, however, is very different. Democracy here exists as little more than a façade welded onto a largely authoritarian and community-based society. There was no prior experience with democracy before the war and, even today, many Japanese have difficulty grasping the basic concepts of individuality that are at its core. The same party has been in power since the war and, in large measure, is the same groups of people wielding the same power as they did before the war- just with different names. Very little policy debate is entered into and the media actively collude with the politicians to keep the population ignorant of the bigger issues.

I’m not putting down the Japanese- cultural norms make the current system suitable for Japan- but it is NOT the democracy that Americans are talking about when they talk about exporting it to the rest of us. Until American leaders and intellectuals look with open eyes at their experiments in exporting democracy, they are never going to have a solid understanding of how this process can be used successfully- if at all.

Well said Plantagenet.I suspect what we are seeing is an attempt by Dibb to reposition himself in the face of the bleeding obvious.
What does Dibb understand by the phrase"as allies of the US"?
Dibb says:" And where were the US State Department advisers and National Security Council staff when it came to warning George W Bush that a weak and defeated Iraq would inevitably lead to Iran becoming the dominant power in the region?"
As an adviser to the Australian Government where was Dibb? Why has it not ben possible, as an ally of the US,for Australia to put this proposition( together with many others ) to the US?I don't recall hearing Dibb leading or even attempting to lead public debate on issues relating to the war.
Dibb says:"...the time has come for us to ask why the Americans are so bad at foreign policy."
Where has Dibb been? Many have asked and have attempted to get answers to that question but couldn't get past the wall of denial.
Dibb says:"But the US is good, very good at conventional war." And then says:'As President Theodore Roosevelt said...:'The country that loses its capacity to hold its own in actual warfare will ultimately show that it has lost every thing.'That is certainly not what we, as allies of the US,want to see as the epitaph of contemporary US foreign policy."
According to Dibb's first statement it is unlikely to be the cause of the epitaph, but having been so categorical he then throws doubt on the substance and strength of future US power.And what,to Dibb, is the source of this power, well surprise,surprise it is the barrel of a gun.Dibb equates ( rightly in my opinion )US warfare with US foreign policy. And that is the rubb whether it is using Israel,Ethiopia or Australia as surrogates the US seeks to extend its influence by force rather than by diplomacy.Australia has been a willing pawn.
Perhaps the loss of power, inherent in the US withdrawal from Iraq, will force it to finally refine,define and utilise its diplomatic skills.
Bruce Haigh

Do we Australians still have a culture, I was under the impression that the U.S.A. had installed their own culture in Australia long ago. Most now say "guy" where our culture said "mate" we have the U.S.A. consumerism culture, we watch U.S.A. TV shows, the shop has become the store.

We used to have an Australian identity, however these days we speak and act like an extra State of the United States of America, our culture has been destroyed, mate ship is something very few of us still practise, it's now "all about me" and what I can rip off someone else, not how can I help someone else, it's a very sad state of affairs, we are even labelled the U.S.A.'s deputy sheriff, oh for an independent Australia once again, is it too late to reverse this ugly process.