Human Rights and International Governance

Things are not good in Washington these days. The Bush administration finds itself in the unenviable position of having to defend a war in Iraq that the American public no longer has any appetite for supporting, while simultaneously having to persuade its NATO allies to remain engaged in Afghanistan in a war that, like Iraq, appears more and more “unwinnable” by the day. Throw into the mix that Israeli-Palestinian question is no closer to being resolved that it was eight years ago, and you pretty much have a recipe for how not to conduct foreign policy in the Middle East. Moreover, it is not yet clear just how damaging the Bush administration’s “missteps” in the War on Terror have been. Time will tell. Even so, one thing seems clear enough: current U.S. foreign policy may very well be compromising U.S. national security.
     Further proof of just how bad things really are came a few days ago. On September 10, U.S. General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told a congressional hearing that roughly 30,000 troops would be coming home by March 2008, but conceded that Congress would still have to fork over another U.S. $100 billion next year in order that the “gains” that U.S. forces have made in recent months are not lost. Those in attendance showed little interest in buying what the general and the ambassador were selling; several – including a number of the presidential hopefuls for 2008 – challenged his interpretation of events on the ground, accusing Petraeus of painting a “rosy picture” of the war, a charge he vehemently denied.
     To date, critics of the war have failed to suggest viable solutions, which is further evidence that Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) is a quagmire. One option is to “stay the course.” As several observers have argued, pulling out prematurely would undoubtedly create a power vacuum within Iraq that could lead to a complete and utter breakdown of order and security, if not a full-blown civil war. Consequently, the U.S. simply cannot leave anytime soon. Moreover, as John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail rightly recently pointed out (seePetraeus and Crocker: measured enough to be believable), orchestrating a withdrawal without causing more harm is an incredibly risky proposition, and should not be entered upon lightly. But maintaining the current strategy is also not viable. The U.S. simply cannot maintain the current costs of the war, both human and financial, and the line-up of other states looking to lend a helping hand is pretty short.
     The current state of affairs is compromising Washington’s foreign policy in other parts of the world, such as the Americas. Because of its military commitments in the Middle East, the U.S. is ill-positioned to play a role in hemispheric security. Depending on your perspective, this might not be a bad thing. But there are widespread fears that Cuba is on the brink of a major social and political upheaval. The U.S. is no fan of Castro, it has the most to lose if Cuba becomes a failed state. If the Castro regime loses control, there is a distinct possibility that the island could explode, potentially resulting in widespread human rights violations, a massive refugee crisis, and the emergence of a new haven for organized criminal elements. If U.S. military forces are spread too thin, Washington may have to rely on other actors in the region to contain the crisis, a possibility that likely does not sit well with Pentagon officials. Even if the U.S. is able to put troops on the ground, it’s not clear that the American public has the appetite for a third prolonged war.
     Luckily for the Bush administration, it’s not all bad news: the architects of the War on Terror can rest at ease knowing that they will not have to be the ones to find solutions to the problems that they have created. Like former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who earlier this year passed the torch onto his successor, Gordon Brown, Bush and his  circle of advisors only have to survive to 2008, at which point another administration, either Republican or Democrat, will inherit the mess they have left behind. The stakes for the next U.S. President are going to be very high. Unless things change soon, the U.S. may very well be incapable of defending itself from legitimate external threats.

The opinions expressed are the personal views of the author only, and do not represent the views of any organization or institution with which he is affiliated.