As a result of the ill venture in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of US policies in Lebanon, Palestine and Iran - many in the Middle East and elsewhere started to express fear about the rise of isolationist tendencies in the US and hence its possible retreat from the world stage.
Isolationism has always been a major problem for US administrations seeking to go outward and play the role of a "benevolent hegemon" in the post-European world system. During the First World War, it took the Woodrow Wilson administration a lot of convincing to persuade the US public that fighting in the European war theatre was in US interest.
Wilson succeeded in taking his country to war but failed to convince a sceptical Congress about his post-war vision. That included playing a greater role in world affairs through the League of Nations and adopting a more activist foreign policy.
During the Second World War the Roosevelt administration wanted from the outset to enter the war but US public opinion stood in the way. Historical documents suggest that the Roosevelt administration needed a big event to help shift public opinion from anti-war to pro-war position.
The opportunity arose when the US ambassador to Tokyo coincidentally learnt about the imminent Japanese attack on the naval base of Pearl Harbor. He informed his government, which to the astonishment of many decided to allow the Japanese to take the first strike. US public opinion exploded in anger afterwards and cried for vengeance.
The September 11 attacks did not create the policies of the Bush administration but made them acceptable for the US public. Hard core neo-cons took advantage of the domestic and international sympathy with the victims of the September 11 attacks to revolutionise the US foreign and security policy. Unilateralism, prevention and pre-emption replaced the classic concepts of containment and deterrence. To devise a clearer vision towards the Middle East the Bush administration injected its over-militarised foreign policy with a doze of democracy promotion.
The war in Afghanistan received wide support among the US public because it was presented as a defensive war. By contrast, the war on Iraq was the first application of what came to be known as the "Bush Doctrine".
Most Americans, whose sons and daughters fought and died in the Middle East, supported the Iraq war because they believed that their children were fighting to defend the nation against "international terrorism". The US public was less enthusiastic, however, when it came to the idea of democracy promotion.
Indeed, most Americans would like to see Iraq and the Middle East, at large, more democratic and less anti-American. Yet, nation-building and democracy promotion are long term commitments that need huge resources.
Americans, as most experts would agree, don't have the guts and patience to see these goals accomplished. The difficulties of the US army in Iraq are not making things easier for most Americans. The perceived failure of the Iraq intervention may push them to favour a more isolationist foreign policy, which is a more natural political position for them. A recent Pew poll indicates a swing in public opinion towards isolationism; the percentage of Americans saying that the US "should mind its own business" has never been higher since the end of the Vietnam War.
Confused
Americans are also confused about the usage by the Bush administration of the term "war on terror". For most of them wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. This particular one does not seem to have any of these conditions. In addition, most Americans believe today that the "war on terror" has been used to justify a whole series of measures that infringe on civil liberties, from detention policy to domestic eavesdropping.
The Bush administration may have just discovered that it may have over-militarised the means by which it has sought to accomplish its objectives. Its worst nightmare will come true, however, if US voters choose to abandon the Republican Party during this November presidential elections and embrace the more pragmatic agenda of the Democratic candidate.
Dr Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
