The consequences of that victory will remain foggy for a long while.
The Bush administration has steadily widened the war’s aims -- from eliminating weapons of mass destruction to ousting Saddam Hussein’s regime to sparking a democratization movement throughout the Middle East to solving the crisis in Palestine. These goals, of course, have proved to be divisive, fraying long-standing alliances in the West. How much they were driven by policy and how much by public relations remains hard to tell. We can only hope that the reconstruction of Iraq will help repair some of these diplomatic fissures.
Beginning on page 41, we take a close look at the conflict’s likely impact on the global economy, Middle Eastern politics and terrorism. Senior Writer Deepak Gopinath examines whether free trade will survive the current strains among allies, while European Editor Tom Buerkle explores the way in which global political concerns are affecting the ability of the French to fix their wobbly economy. Buerkle also assembled the group of distinguished contributors, ranging from counterterrorism expert Steven Simon to such well-known economists as Morgan Stanley’s Steven Roach. Their insights are sobering: Simon, for one, foresees a new generation of terrorists spawned by the war.
The future, of course, is unknowable. But there have been enough echoes of the past to send chills down the spine. Begin with the uncanny resemblance -- rimless spectacles and all -- between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Vietnam-era counterpart, Robert McNamara. We hear some of the same jargon: “mission creep,” “winning hearts and minds,” “collateral damage.” This war has been swifter, cleaner, far more successful. For the U.S. and the U.K., the quagmire is more likely to be found in the peace than on the battlefield. The time to worry will come when -- and if -- the victors begin to speak of the light at the end of the tunnel.
