Supremacy Of The US 'Super-Duper-Power' Brings Enemies To Heel

The war against Iraq was always about more than just toppling Saddam Hussein. It was also intended to establish a new form of worldwide deterrence, based on the display of overwhelming American military superiority.

And, at least according to the Pentagon, it was effective. The North Koreans, US officials reported, were taken aback by the sheer speed and efficiency of the war, leading to a recalculation of their own stand-off with Washington. Perhaps, judging by their hasty efforts to appease American demands in the immediate aftermath of the taking of Baghdad, the Syrians and Iranians were too.

Iraqi civilian and military casualties, although still high enough to stir considerable anti-American anger, were a fraction of what they were during the Gulf War of 1991.

The smart weapons were immeasurably smarter, the control of airspace so effortless that Iraq never sent a single warplane into the skies. (Slobodan Milosevic didn't either, during the US-led Nato war in Kosovo in 1999.)

We can be reasonably sure that the US military will remain unchallenged – at least in the arena of conventional weapons. The noises coming from the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld further suggest that military force will be an increasing influence in foreign policy making in general. "For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might," Gregg Easterbrook wrote in The New York Times.

"Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force, because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up. The great-powers arms race, in progress for centuries, has ended with the rest of the world conceding triumph to the United States."

The mathematics, as well as the technology, tells the story. The US defence budget has been increased to about $400bn (£250bn) a year. That's more than the defence budgets of the rest of the world put together. No other nation, for example, possesses a "supercarrier" – a seaborne battle group ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines. America has nine, with a tenth under construction, of which five were dispatched to the Gulf for the Iraqi invasion.

Given the tenfold advance in smart weapons technology over the past decade, we can only guess where the US military is going from here. Already there have been experiments with microwave bombs that knock out infrastructure and computer systems without necessarily killing many, or any, people; with whole new classes of "non-lethal" chemicals (although the recent theatre siege in Moscow suggests there is much more work to be done in this field, not to mention some hefty rewriting of the international laws of war); and with unmanned warplanes. A book by the security specialist John Leech speculates on a future of "war without death" – death to the attacking forces, anyway.

This is the new world of undisputed US military supremacy that the Rumsfelds and Cheneys have been theorising on since the end of the Cold War, and now it is coming to pass. One Republican leader in Congress, Tom DeLay, referred to America as an emerging "super-duper-power".

Such superiority, and the willingness to wield it, does not come without some troubling questions. The first is whether weaker countries won't now feel their only sure defence lies in nuclear weapons – the question at the heart of the North Korea crisis, and one that risks triggering a potentially cataclysmic nuclear arms race.

The second is whether America will become over- reliant on military solutions to problems for which traditional diplomacy might be a more appropriate response. The Bush administration's willingness to shred international treaties and disregard the United Nations suggests a heavily militaristic approach; whether future administrations, endowed with the same military assets, will want to take a more emollient, more multilateral line on world security remains to be seen.

Authoritarian regimes in Middle East have never felt so vulnerable

By Rupert Cornwell
01 May 2003
Independent (UK)

The stunning display of American military might that toppled Saddam Hussein has not only achieved "regime change" in Iraq. It is sending shock waves through the Middle East and will transform the regional balance of power, albeit in ways that may not be apparent.

Officially, the goal of the United States could not be more ambitious: the creation of a democratic Iraq and the emergence of that country as a model for democracy in a part of the world that, hitherto, has been resistant to it.

That vision, dear to the "idealist" wing of the Washington neo-conservatives – led by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary – may prove unrealisable, in Iraq and beyond. But some entrenched authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have probably never felt so vulnerable. Foremost is Syria, which this weekend will receive a harsh lecture from Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State.

The fall of Saddam's Iraq has left Syria diplomatically isolated and economically vulnerable, now that its tap of cheap Iraqi oil has been closed.

As General Powell will make clear, Damascus is susceptible to pressure to cease its support for terrorist groups such as Hizbollah, which operates against Israel through Syria's client state of Lebanon.

The prospect of a direct US attack against Syria, raised in thinly-veiled form by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, during the closing stages of the Iraqi campaign, may have receded. But Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, is on notice. As Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said yesterday, Syria had to "reconsider its role in the world".

President Assad will need no reminding that, as was the case in Saddam's Baghdad, his iron-fisted rule is imposed by a minority group, in Syria's case the Alawites, accounting for 12 per cent of the population. He will wonder: if Iraq has been "liberated", might not the US work behind the scenes for the "liberation" of Syria, if Damascus does not co-operate in the search for Middle East peace?

Another loser is Iran, a fellow member with Iraq in George Bush's "axis of evil".

Iran has had a ringside view of America's overwhelmingly powerful armed forces in action. President Bush says he plans no further wars in the region. But the fact that he felt it necessary to issue such a denial will lead to second thoughts in Tehran about its sponsorship of Hizbollah.

Indeed, the landscape looks much less promising for extremist groups in general. No longer will Saddam's bounty be available to the families of suicide bombers. True, the "Arab street" is resentful, and the war may fuel recruitment by al-Qa'ida, but their financial support has surely been diminished as a result of this war.

Yet the tremors will extend into countries counted among American allies. Saudi Arabia has already learnt that US troops will be withdrawn from its territory. This may improve the longer-term prospects of the monarchy, but not necessarily the short-term ones, in a repressive and corrupt country where Islamic radicalism is one of the few alternative political outlets.

The same goes for Egypt, the second largest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel. Before the war, its President, Hosni Mubarak, warned that a conflict in Iraq could destabilise the entire region – including, he might have added, his own country, which is facing grim economic and social problems. In lesser measure, the same goes for Jordan as well, though unlike his father in the Gulf War in 1991, King Abdullah II has broadly aligned Amman with the US.

But events will be conditioned by what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians. If the US uses its power to bring about a settlement that leads to a viable, genuine Palestinian state, many of the tensions will ease. With no settlement, the squeeze on moderate Arab states, caught between expected backing for the US and the pro-Palestinian mood among their people, could become intolerable.

"Such superiority, and the willingness to wield it, does not come without some troubling questions. The first is whether weaker countries won't now feel their only sure defence lies in nuclear weapons – the question at the heart of the North Korea crisis, and one that risks triggering a potentially cataclysmic nuclear arms race."

These same Leftists were promising us last year that if GWB went through with his plan to end the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty, that it would lead to a nuclear arms race.

Then again back when Bush promised to deploy our ABM system in 2004, they promised that it would lead to a nuclear arms race.

Now they are once more promising a nuclear arms race, this time because we are so strong conventionally.

Is that the only thing that they can fantasize about in order to try to frighten us?! Anything we do will cause a nuclear arms race or anger the Arab street, claim the Leftists (with hardly a spare breath in between each wild-eyed claim)...

It's going to take people quite a while to get their minds around the aftermath of Iraq. After 9/11 we witnessed pundits still thinking in terms of pre- 9/11 and now we see whole nations gnawing on the Iraqi Freedom bone with pre-Iraqi Freedom teeth.

The entire Middle East equation has been altered. Things have changed- irrevocably... So called intellectuals haven't cottoned on to this yet. The US has created and defined an entirely different playing field while her opponents are still trying to compete on and level the gaming pitch of the last century.

Change is going to come at an ever increasing rate in the future. None of our preexisting notions are safe. Those cultures that rely on restricting and controlling the flow of information and technology are the most vulnerable to changing paradigms and cultures that make the most of these changes.

The Middle Eastern nations (and consequently, those reporters/pundits who lionize them) who carved a niche for themselves by being backwards cesspools have suddenly found themselves left behind in one bold quantum leap- an abyss they can never hope to span. Their domestic policy will in effect be whatever the current foreign policy of the US is. They have one clear choice: get on board the train RIGHT NOW or be left behind forever. They must become a cooperative partner right here and now or consign their progeny to serfdom.

The Irans, Syrias, Pakistans, Palestinian Authorities et al will become the Indian Reservations of the 21st century- bank on it...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.