Although American victory was never in doubt, the manner it was achieved astonished the world. Iraq was still a considered a military power, despite significant erosion of its combat readiness after the 1991 Gulf War and ten years of sanctions. It possessed an estimated 430000 soldiers without including its paramilitary forces (CNN, 2003). However they were of no match to American high tech war machine. The world watched in awe as America destroys Iraqis targets with incredible precision using Tomahawk missiles and its overwhelming air superiority. While its ground forces storm their way to Baghdad, managing to ‘liberate’ Iraq just 43 days (CNN, 2003).
The amazing ease American had its opponents swept aside with minimal casualties, demonstrated that it possessed a vastly superior military power which no other current powers could match. Hence, the primacy of American military power has been reinforced with its victory in Iraq.
American victories in Afghanistan and Iraq had not only reasserted American military primacy, it also brought potential benefits to other American interests. You might think with the countries in tatters after the wars, how can that benefit American interests?
Starting from Afghanistan, it is located near the energy resources rich region of central and western Asia. With its ‘liberation’, the prospect of a new route of access to these resources presented itself (Booth & Dunne, 2002, 14). This benefited the American oil consortiums, which now can have a better access these markets.
As for Iraq, it possesses the second largest proven oil reserves in the world (CNN, 2003). With the reconstruction process restricted to the ‘coalition of the willing’, this huge oil market will largely be shared by Britain and America. Hence increasing America’s stranglehold on the world most important energy resource, reducing the vulnerability of its economy to the fluctuations of oil prices. Not mentioning other billion dollars reconstruction projects waiting to be won by American companies in both countries.
While it can be argued that all these might not be achievable with America now facing one of the largest fiscal deficits ever, President Bush’s proposal for $87 billion US dollar reconstruction plan is hanging in limbo. It is undeniable that if America managed to get its plan off ground it will only serve to further increase the dominance of its economic power.
However, the foundation of current American hegemonic power is not made up solely by ‘hard’ power. America, compared to previous imperial powers, has relatively limited ambition in expanding its overseas territories. America’s strategy since Second World War constitute not only of military deployments but also the construction of international institutions and norms consistent with the liberal democratic structure of American capitalism (Goh, 2003, 79). In fact it is so successful in legitimising American hegemony with its “soft” power, that it has become ‘common sense’. Many people can no longer perceive an alternative world order. Therefore, we will now examine how each elements of American ‘soft’ power is affected in the aftermath of 11th September 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The first element I am going to examine is the appeal of American culture and values (Goh, 2003, 80). It is important because if everyone aspires to live out the ‘American dream’, it would be much easier for America persuade other people to ‘want what it want.’
America has long been symbolised as a land of the free. American leaders have long preached about democracy and human rights to the world and have largely succeeded in portraying America as the ‘light’ of the world.
Ironically, what it preached is not always what it practise. One of the justifications given by President Bush for the invasion and regime change for Iraq is that Saddam has perpetuated serious abuses of human rights in Iraq; hence it is a fit case for humanitarian intervention. This case was also made against other states from Haiti to Yugoslavia (Ayoob, 2003, 30).
However, if this is the case why states including Rwanda where the situation came closest to the to the definition of genocide, Israel where state sponsored assassinations are a norm, as well as other repressive middle east states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia were left out? Though noble is the cause, American’s double standards and selectivity has led many people to question as to why only Iraq is singled out for regime change while others get away scot-free (Ayoob, 2003, 30).
The argument that Saddam uses chemical weapons against its own people is not convincing either, for America was generally supportive of Saddam regime when these weapons were used against the Kurds during the1980s. In fact, there are credible reports that Saddam acquired his chemical weapons with Britain’s (a major member of the ‘coalition of the willing’) help, with Britain knowing full well that it would be lashed out on Iranian troops in Iran-Iraq War (Ayoob, 2003, 30).
Therefore the use of chemical-weapons issue to justify the ‘liberation’ appears to be self-serving hypocrisy to many people. This very much reduced the appeal of American culture and values as they have now come to symbolise the hypocrisy of American ideology, thus dealing a major blow to America’s ‘soft’ power.
The second element I am going to examine is the world’s perception of benignity and the apparent legitimacy of American exercise of power (Goh, 2003, 80). This is important because if Americans were perceived as the ‘good guy’, there would be less opposition to its exercise of power as they are likely to be deemed as legitimate and beneficial by rest of the world, thus making them more sustainable.
America had, in the past, voluntarily allows itself to be bound by the international institutions that it had helped to create. Hence, popularising its image as being sensitive to the opinions of the world and is committed to building international consensus (Goh, 2003, 79). This cemented America’s status as a benign hegemon, enabling to it to gain widespread support in the international arena.
However when President Bush challenged the United Nation to confront Saddam for his ‘decade of defiance’ or risk irrelevance in his speech to the United Nation General Assembly on 12th of September 2002 (Goh, 2003, 86), it gave many the impression that America’s is attempting to cash its superpower chips by trying to ‘bully’ the world into submitting to its will.
Perhaps what America attempted to do can be best describe by a chinese proverb: ‘挟天子以令诸候’ (xia tian zi yi ling zhu hou). Which literally means: holding the ‘son of heaven’ (tian zi), better known as emperor, as hostage ‘so as to command’ (yi ling) ‘various marquises’ (zhu hou). In this case we can substitute the emperor with United Nations and the marquises with various nations.
When President Bush decided to ‘liberate’ Iraq without the authorization of United Nation Security Council, the legitimacy of this war is questioned. As according to Roger Normad (executive director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights), United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 passed unanimously because it stipulated that no member could use it as a pretext for war without a second resolution from the Security Council (Adas, 2003, 67).
As America went after Saddam for his ‘material breach’ of Resolution 1441, it is interesting to note that it is Israel, with an estimated 32 violations under its belt, and not Iraq (16 violations) that flouted the most Security Council resolutions. While NATO member Turkey comes in second with 24 violations (Ayoob, 2003, 33). Both nations are America’s allies in the region. Hence, there is no surprise that many people questioned the motive behind the invasion. With David Kay (head of the CIA's search for banned weapons in Iraq) admitting that NO weapons of mass destruction were found so far, many felt that their doubts were vindicated.
All these reinforced America’s new image as a ‘big bully’ whose power projections are illegitimate and harmful. Consequently seriously undermining the its ‘soft’ power, making it more difficult for America to gain international cooperation and support in its future endeavours. A sign of this happening is the opposition of Germany and France (both members of NATO) over the invasion of Iraq, signalling a split in the normally robust alliance.
Some argued that the decline in America’s ‘soft’ power is only temporary. According to them when President Bush’s grand plan of planting ‘seeds of democracy’ into the heart of Middle East succeed, Arabs will not only embrace American values but also view America as the light that brought them out the darkness.
However it is good to know that when the British captured Baghdad in March 1917, Major General Stanley Maude too announced, ‘Our armies come not as conquerors, but liberators.’ However when Iraq revolted three years later, the British only managed to ‘pacify’ Iraq after leaving 10000 Iraqis dead (Adas, 2003, 67).
Not that history would reoccur, but with current American casualties inflicted daily by internal resistance forces and terrorists groups exceeding those sustained during ‘major combat’. It is hard to see that the plan would succeed in the near future. Hence, President Bush’s plan remains grandiose for now.
In sum, in the aftermath of 11th September 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the primacy of American ‘hard’ power had been reinforced. However, its ‘soft’ power had declined substantially. While America has attained unmatched military prowess and economic might, it is losing the war over the hearts and minds of the world. Recent opinion polls around the world had shown that America is rapidly on its way to becoming the most resented country in the world. Adapting from Professor Jack Snyder: Despite America’s dominance in military and economic spheres, Americans are facing a greater risk of dying from a terrorist attack than never before. Making America a ‘paradox of omnipotence and vulnerability’ (Spencer, 2003, 187). Judging from these, I can safely conclude that the triumph of American power far is from complete. In fact in my opinion, if America failed to arrest the decline of its “soft” power it might not be able to sustain its hegemonic power well into the distant future.
