Bernell DorroughWhat are the possible long-term effects of U.S. engagement with Iraq on the global power structure? Also, how does the war change the role of international organizations such as the United Nations in solving conflicts?
Paul Rothstein:
The short term damage to the U.N. is obvious. Will we take our claims about Syria to the U.N.? We may, but the question sounds silly, and that fact speaks volumes. Over the longer term, I think the U.S. will still want the U.N. to be central in small and messy conflicts (Bosnia, Sierra Leone, East Timor) and peripheral conflicts where the stakes are obviously high for us (the Koreas, China and Taiwan). The real change concerns conflicts where we perceive a minor threat that could become a major threat. Are we going to act unilaterally in all of these situations? Is that the new policy? This would undermine international organizations of all kinds, since fundamentally they are in the business of threat reduction by other means. This isn’t being discussed right now since doing so would take the glow off the success in Iraq, but preemption has serious support in the Pentagon. It is going to take more time to know where this is heading.
Larry May:
The current war in Iraq shows quite clearly to me the increasing value of a strong United Nations. The U.S. demonstrated that it is very poor at peacekeeping. This should be no surprise since Bush strongly criticized Clinton in the last election for doing the miniscule amount of peacekeeping that he did. The U.S. may be the strongest military power on the planet, but military might has little to do with peacekeeping and peacemaking. The U.N. is not a military might, and should not be, but it is light-years ahead of the U.S. in peacekeeping. Just think of one case: imagine how we would feel if the Metropolitan Museum had just been looted of all of the historical and cultural treasurers of our country, while troops stood by with all of their fancy weapons.