Formally, it was. Baghdad was under the control of American forces, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein escaped and was captured six months later. In fact, the invasion of the United States and its coalition destroyed the Iraqi state, which led to a bloody civil war, the collapse of the country, a radical change in the balance of power in the region (d ‘elsewhere, not in favor of the Americans), and also became the root cause of a series of upheavals that swept the Middle East in the 2000s and 10s.
Much has been said about the war in Iraq, so we will not repeat it. Let us only note that its defenders, who justify the opportunity of the actions of the time under, as we now know, a false pretext, no longer exist except in the ranks of the most stubborn neoconservatives. Even their supporters, though less radical, admit that the intervention was unsuccessful and unnecessary. Nevertheless, most of the initiators of the campaign – ex-president Bush himself, his entourage Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl – benefit from honorary pensions, and Donald Rumsfeld left this world with honors there two years old.
Looking back on the events of this time, it is important to appreciate the role the invasion played in modern history. Iraq has become the culmination of US efforts to establish full and unchallenged hegemony. Whatever the motivation for the decision to go to war (and the motives were different – from the extremely mercantile to personal and dogmatic idealism), they did not hide the political meaning. The events of September 11, 2001, when America was attacked by a strange and seemingly incomparable enemy in terms of caliber, caused a shock. We had to show that Washington is still capable of doing what it wants. Even if it does not meet with the support of most of the countries of the world and the main allies. And it happened. And Bush’s appearance on the carrier was meant to restore the status quo.
Iraq has become the culmination of US efforts to establish full and uncontested hegemony
However, things went further in such a way that Iraq actually recorded the opposite. The limit of American possibilities and the need to retreat in the face of an almost uncontrollable religious and political element. It didn’t happen instantly, but it was already irreversible. The second presidential term, won by Bush despite widespread dissatisfaction, particularly with the situation in Iraq, was a period of progressive waning of ambitions. It should be remembered that the first term, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, also included “color revolutions” in the neighboring countries of Russia (Georgia and Ukraine), which were part of the general course of domination .
The continued presence of the United States in the Middle East has been increasingly marked not by proactive actions, but by reactive actions, Americans have had to face more and more the consequences of their own policies. The “Arab Spring” initially aroused enthusiasm and even revived the instinct for interventionism, but quickly got bogged down in confused realities. Well, the appearance of the “Islamic State” (banned in the Russian Federation) has made it necessary to seriously put out the fire, potentially threatening direct American interests. Extinguished, however, in the end, everyone, not just those who initially ignited.
The Russian military operation in Syria in 2015 somehow marked the end of a stage that began in 2003. In the United States, there is an open or not quite process of rethinking the importance of the Middle East. It started under Obama and continued under Trump. The latter was clearly burdened with great power obligations in the region, but chose two strongholds – Israel and Saudi Arabia. Paradoxically, it is with them that relations have frankly shrunk under Biden, even though he seemed to promise to restore the leading role of the United States in this part of the world. Suddenly, today, the presence of the United States tends more and more towards the declarative, and above all, the objectives are not clear.
In fact, the “windings” of the American attitude towards the Middle East would only be a fact of the historical biography of the United States itself, if it were not for the astonishing (beneficial) effect that their remoteness has on the region. For a long time there has been a view that this part of the world, due to a combination of various circumstances, is a hopeless anthill. The peoples and states themselves are doomed to endless squabbles, and external forces somehow rationalize the situation. Not perfect either, but somehow.
The experience of the last decades proves the opposite. The main problems are the result of external interference, whatever their justification. And when, due to certain circumstances, regional players are left to their own devices, by trial and error, they still begin to roll towards normalization. This remains extremely difficult, but at least in everyone’s interest, since everyone is directly concerned.
The US invasion of Iraq was the apotheosis of post-Cold War US expansionism and at the same time a testament to its downfall. And that, of course, is not only a lesson for Washington, but also an illustration of the changes in the world. The era of superpowers is over. The world will be arranged differently.
Read the Latest Science and Technology News Today on The Eastern Herald.
