Jane Siviski
Modern European History
January 31, 2005
Why We Won’t Succeed in Iraq
Dominic Lieven offers many ideas about imperialism in the modern world, more specifically, about current U.S. policy, and our understanding of democracy in a global setting. With the U.S. involvement in the world today, our interest in the world could almost be called imperialistic. Democracy’s connotation has shifted in U.S. history, varying with our involvement/uninvolvement- in the past, democracy has meant peace would govern the nations, no feathers would be ruffled, letting nations exist as they do; democracy might as well mean, “governed by peace. ” Our abandonment of true democracy and our relatively abnormal concern for other nations around the globe, and our optimism in these international affairs would indicate that we are more of an empire than we would like to think. And according to Lieven and some historically based calculations that he has brought to light, empires did not and cannot succeed.
This suggests the U.S.’s quest to create a stable democratic government in Iraq will be futile. States once held by imperialistic global powers are now struggling, with terrorism, and unstable governments, if any. Consider Islamic and African countries. Imperialism hinders a county’s development, and with it the chance of it’s being strong and truly self-governing. Empires have also failed when they become unequal to the task, which begs the question, of whether the U.S.’s efforts will eventually expire. Historically speaking, the U.S.’s chances are slim.
For another reason we will not succeed in Iraq. Contemporary standards of popular sovereignty being what they are, we will never have the all of the resources we need to pull off the job in Iraq, unless we force consent of nations around the world to give us resources. Until sufficient nations are behind us and our goal, our assets will grow slim. In this light, our mission in Iraq is bound to fail.