This is the question everybody is seeking an answer for. The Bush administration thinks it knows what the power is for and Mr. Bush believes he is putting it to good use in Iraq, Afghanistan, potentially in Iran and elsewhere. But the hard realities of war and what is happening in the real world belie this false sense of confidence.
“We’re stronger than any [nation] probably since the Roman Empire. But we can’t do what used to be done with that kind of strength.” This is what Brent Scowcroft said on the Charlie Rose Show (June 15, 2007) in response to a question about whether the US is stronger or weaker today. There is no straight answer to that question because power is a relative thing. Regardless of short-term policy issues, a country is strong or weak only in relation to the power-distribution in the world.
For several centuries the Ottoman Empire was the only superpower for Europe, but only a rival to the Safavid Empire in the East. During the age of colonialism, all European countries were both powerful and weak vis-à-vis their positions in the lands they had colonized. The British Empire was the empire over which the sun never set, but it was always in a position of disadvantage when set against mainland Europe. The French practically had half of Africa under its domination but was constantly challenged by Bismarck’s Germany. The Dutch were the most ambitious colonizers with huge gains but never a major power in Europe.
The point is that there has never been such a thing as an unchallenged absolute power and anyone who thinks otherwise should read more history. The Cold War was a huge exception to the rule. The special circumstances of that period made America look and behave like the only superpower. Yet the American defeats and failures in Vietnam, Europe, most of the Arab world and Latin America revealed the limits of American power.
The situation is not very different 20 years after the end of the Cold War. We should all remember that neither the US nor Russia nor the Islamic community was able to draw up a new world order after the fall of the communist bloc. The first Gulf War of 1991 did not bring any order either. It gave “Father Bush” a chance to show the muscles of American power but achieved practically nothing.
The problem is that one cannot accumulate so much power and then not know what to do with it. This is the dilemma of the neocons who worship the American power and the Bush administration which wants to do it all by force alone. Too much power is like having a strong currency: it can be a blessing if you know what to do with it or it can be a curse if you use it only to squander what you have.
We can have all kinds of debates about different strategies for fighting terrorism, providing aid, securing energy and so on. But at the end of the day it all comes down to power-sharing. If you’re not willing to share power in this world of emerging new centers and strong regional alliances, you can only use your available power to lose more and more of it.
This is precisely the problem with the current US policy in Iraq (it keeps changing and that is why you must keep saying “current”). The Bush administration blames the Iraqis for not doing enough to provide security, but never lets them have enough power to do anything. The same story is seen in Palestine. Every time the Americans or Israelis blame the Palestinians for not doing enough, you have to ask if the Palestinians have been given any power to do anything at all.
The confusion about the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq rests on the same dilemma. Yes, the US wants to leave Iraq (because it is such a mess now that even the only remaining “superpower” cannot sort it out), but it wants to leave in such a way that nothing is taken away from its power. Well, you can’t have it both ways. This is what Henry Kissinger says in the same Charlie Rose Show: “How can we get out [of Iraq] and maintain the ca
