My way--or the highway?
When Washington decided to lead the free world, way back in 1949, America's leaders hemmed and hawed and finally agreed to sign on with NATO, the treaty that called for 12 nations to defend one another against outside attack. The ceremony, with President Harry Truman in attendance, went off with nary a hitch, but for one nagging detail. The secretary of state, Dean Acheson, recalled being struck that day that the choice of music, performed with brio by the Marine Band, hardly heralded great things for the new alliance. The selection that got Acheson's attention, from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, was titled "I've Got Plenty of Nothin'."
Today the problem--if you can call it that--is that America's got plenty of everything. The United States stands alone as the most powerful nation in the world: Its economy, even when it sputters, is a formidable engine. Its military might, as measured by spending on defense, is the equal of the next 25 nations combined. Judged by the sweep of centuries, this position simply is not normal; even after World War II, when the United States achieved superpower status, it was matched by Moscow.
What good is having unrivaled power, though, if you can't use it? This question is behind much of the contentious debate on Iraq, as a recent encounter at the White House shows. After a formal strategy session on Iraq had broken up in the Situation Room, two senior officials continued to argue about how the world's only superpower ought to act. The Pentagon's man said that if America has clout, it must use it: "This is the era of American hegemony," he argued. "We don't need allies." The State Department's man countered that it is not enough to impose America's will on the world; other nations must be coaxed to support us. "You live in a different world than I do," he said.
The balance is tipped in favor of the State Department view--at least for now. As it braces for a showdown with Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has coordinated its efforts with the United Nations, securing world support for a strict regime of weapons inspections. But the new year will bring new challenges: If the United States and the rest of the U.N. Security Council agree that Iraq has violated international norms, Washington will not have to go to war alone. But the Security Council may not endorse Washington's determination to strike. Then President Bush will have to decide whether to launch a war with the backing of friends like Britain, but without the U.N.'s approval.
Even those members of the president's war team who value the world's blessing believe, in the end, that it is not essential. "We're not disciples of the Rodney King school of foreign policy, where the purpose . . . is to get along," says Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department. But it turns out that in an age of American hegemony, the United States still needs help to get what it wants overseas. The active cooperation of foreign governments is critical, for instance, to choke off terrorist funding, track down suspects, and develop intelligence leads to avert attacks. (Other states have been responsible for blocking about 70 percent of total terrorist assets discovered since 9/11.) Fighting side by side with allies in Iraq would confer greater legitimacy on a controversial war and limit an anti-American backlash. And if Saddam is overthrown, Washington will want others to share the burdens of peacekeeping and rebuilding Iraq, which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Right now, Europe is in no mood to write a big check. "There are very cold feelings in some capitals," says a senior European diplomat.
advertisement
