There must be a limit to Europe's tolerance of US military ventures, argues Deaglán de Bréadún
During the war in Iraq, every setback for the invasion forces was taken as a harbinger of doom by the many critics of the endeavour, including some former members of the military top brass in the US. It was wishful thinking: victory over Saddam did take longer than originally expected, but not much. The casualties, though far from negligible, were far fewer than some of the war's opponents had predicted.
In a word, the Right was right in its forecast of events in the Iraqi war. But the Right was wrong in its expectations of the war's aftermath. First, there were no welcoming crowds lining the streets of Baghdad, waving American flags. Secondly, the guerrilla campaign against the coalition of US and British forces, although not a major surprise in itself, has shown greater strength, ferocity and ruthlessness than many expected. Thirdly, the difficulties of establishing a stable post-Saddam Iraq were seriously underestimated.
It is, in fact, a right old mess and Uncle Sam is running to the United Nations to help save him from the consequences of a venture which was well planned on the military level but badly thought out as a civic enterprise.
In the aftermath of the second World War, the US showed brilliance and panache in leading the reconstruction of a shattered Germany (apart from the portion retained by Stalin) and Japan. Initiatives like the Marshall Plan generated economic miracles from the ruins of war. In those days, the US knew something about nation-building. Of course, it had just gone through a highly successful nation-building experiment of its own with Roosevelt's New Deal.
That was then, this is now.
Even before the Iraq war, a senior US diplomat in Brussels told me, in effect, "we're good at the military stuff but Europe is better at nation-building". There would be material for a good MA thesis in analysing why the US no longer possesses the same nation-building capacities it once had, but, for now, we must confront the situation that exists.
It would be understandable if France and Germany, in particular, felt a temptation to stand aside and let the coalition stew in its own mess in Iraq. Gallic and Teutonic equivalents of "we told you so" must be in the back of their minds. There is also the fear that if the American neo-conservatives can rely on Europe to help clean up after their latest military adventure it will only encourage them to seek out further fields of endeavour. Iran, North Korea, Syria - where will it end?
At the same time, Iraq is too important and pivotal a country and too critical for the stability of the Middle East to be allowed deteriorate into total chaos. In addition, there are the pressing humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, already tugging at the world's conscience for years as they suffered under the politically ineffective UN sanctions.
So it looks as if Europe, as well as the UN in general, have no choice but to become further entangled in the Iraq imbroglio. The risks are great, even at the personal level as shown by the sad fate of Sergio Vieira de Mello and his team. But there is also the broader, global risk of becoming a de facto accomplice in a project for some vague new American empire.
Clipping the wings of the "hawks" is not going to be easy, although mercifully they are not in total control of US foreign policy. After September 11th, France's Le Monde wrote: "Nous sommes tous des Américains" (We are all Americans). It was a widely felt sentiment but, early this year, many people wondered, "how did we get from 9-11 to Iraq?"
Last week, we learned Tony Blair was warned by his own intelligence advisers that an Iraqi war would only exacerbate the problem of international terrorism. Some of the experts are starting to tell us that terrorism has got worse rather than better as a result of the US-led response to the World Trade Centre attacks. The suspicion is growing that 9-11 was used as an excuse to advance a long-cherished neo-conservative agenda, outlined by organisations such as the Washington-based think-tank, Project for the New American Century.
If it turns out that this is where we are heading, then it will be time to call a halt. Assisting in the reconstruction of Iraq under UN auspices is an unavoidable necessity. Co-operation at security and financial levels to curb and suppress terrorist organisations which threaten democracy and stability is in the interests of all. If a regime or failed state is sheltering terrorists, then it should be dealt with in the most appropriate manner.
But the imposition of a pax Americana on the world, with lucrative commercial implications for some, is not acceptable. The people of the world spoke in their millions during the mass demonstrations on February 15th against the Iraqi war, but they were comprehensively ignored. While none would regret the fall of Saddam, the other consequences of that conflict appear at this stage to be largely negative. Maybe the people should be listened to in future and, if not, perhaps they will give their answer at the polling-booth.
Deaglán de Bréadún is Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times