It’s so annoying when a newspaper I otherwise like has neo-imperialist politics. Last week’s Economist, for example, opines that Britain, a country that has no militarily hostile neighbors and hasn’t been invaded in centuries, must have nuclear weapons for self-defense, but Iran, in much more difficult circumstances, must not. And the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page is usually much worse.
So I was surprised by a recent WSJ guest editorial by chessmaster Garry Kasparov that sounds a lot like Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne‘s “offshore balancing” strategy (see “A New Grand Strategy“), promoted here on Antiwar.com before the Iraq invasion.
“Chessboard Endgame: Obsessed with Iraq, we’ve lost sight of the rest of the world,” (a weird title, since the author lives in Russia) by Garry Kasparov:
… The attack on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan went so well that the U.S. and its allies did not appreciate all the reasons for the success. Almost every player on the world stage benefited from the attack on Afghanistan. The rout of the Sunni Taliban delighted Iran. Russia and China have no love for religious extremism near their borders. India was happy to see the U.S. launch a direct attack on Muslim terrorists.
… Not only was there a confluence of world opinion aided by sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11, but the proverbial bad guys were undoubtedly bad, and we knew where they were.
… America’s role as “bad cop” has been a flop on the global stage. Without the American presence in Iraq as a target and scapegoat, Iraqis would be forced to make the hard political decisions they are currently avoiding. We won’t know if Iraq can stand on its own until the U.S. forces leave. Meanwhile, South Korea and China refuse to take action on North Korea while accusing the U.S. of provocative behavior. How quickly would their attitudes change if the U.S. pulled its troops out of the Korean Peninsula? Or if Japan — not to mention Taiwan — announced nuclear weapon plans?
… As the world’s sole superpower, the U.S. has become a lightening rod. Any intervention causes resentment, and even many traditional allies oppose U.S. plans almost out of hand. America’s overly proactive foreign policy has also allowed other nations to avoid responsibility for their own safety, and to avoid making the tough decisions that come with that responsibility.
… All the allied troops in the world aren’t going to stop the Iraqi people from continuing their civil war if this is their choice. … As for stability, if allied troops leave Iraq: What stability? … Without change, we are expecting a different result from the same behavior, something once defined as insanity.
Readers might want to check out the Peace section of my science blog.