Nonviolent Change Journal

LEARNING THE LESSONS OF IRAQ:
THE NEED FOR U.S. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Stephen M. Sachs, IUPUI

     The fullness of the world in all its complexity is coming more and more into each place and moment, making them increasingly holograms, where everyone and everything is more directly and immediately interrelated. That is the first lesson of the current Iraq situation, seen by Dr. Robert Muller in noting that, for the first time, millions of people all over the world were involved in debating the issue of what would happen in a single, not particularly large, country. What happens in Iraq is now directly related to what happens in Iran, in North Korea, wherever. That means also, that the issues of a single situation are now so magnified, that all that can be done here is to try to touch on, hopefully, representative aspects of the complex of issues. Thus, the reader needs to keep any useful truths that the author may have slightly illuminated in balance with what is not, and cannot, be said, as it applies relatedly, but differentially, in each context.

     Similarly, the world cannot be understood from Washington, or London, or Baghdad,, or from any single perspective, while multiple perspectives are now available everywhere and to virtually everyone via the expanding web and satellite interlinkages. More than ever, at every level, we need to take each other respectfully into account in order to act well. Wise Presidents have always sought out a wide range of views. It is more important, now, for the White House, for all decision makers, to listen and act inclusively, actively taking into account the seeings of even those with whom they disagree, in order to glean the full range of truths necessary for appropriate action. This means seeing one another in terms of diversity of views, rather than as narrow bipolarites of positions, when those are merely opposite end points on single, or small sets, of many interconnecting spectrums: single dimensions of a multidimensional whole.

     It was the case in the 1960s, with the Bay of Pigs incident, that the operation failed, in part, because the U.S. government did not really know the thinking and situation of the Cuban people, but merely assumed, on the basis of its own internal logic, that the landing of a small force of anti-Castro Cubans would trigger a general uprising. It is more of a disaster now to assume what people are likely to do, without a firm understanding of them, in their particular situation. Failing to do that in Iraq is not only prolonging the war and bringing far greater than hoped for human and economic costs, but is dangerously inflaming passions across the region, while upsetting important relationships for everyone around the world, including the United Sates.

     9/11 shocked many of us into realizing that developing technology increasingly makes it possible for a few people to do immense harm, anywhere. What has not been adequately appreciated, in some important quarters, is that the problems truly are global, and thus require global solutions. Acting in one, or a small number, of places is inadequate. It is too costly for one nation, or a limited coalition to do the job alone, even for just their own security. Trying to do so meaningfully tends to make the problem worse. Even the world’s most powerful nation, with one ally, and a small amount of support from a number of nations, invading Iraq, only compounds the problems of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. The attack on Iraq merely makes North Korea and Iran more fearful of the same happening to them, causing them to work harder to develop nuclear capacity. While the U.S. is focused upon Iraq, it fails to deal with the currently larger and more immediate threat in North Korea, possibly until it is too late, when North Korea may be providing atomic weapons to others, including terrorists, and the rest of Asia responds, initiating a nuclear arms race. Meanwhile, the invasion of Iraq angers people across the Middle East, west into Africa and East to the Pacific, creating more terrorists and people willing to support them, weakening the ability and will to suppress them, and possibly destabilizing some regimes (at least one of which has nuclear capability) and perhaps an entire region.

     An aspect of the problem is the set of dilemmas concerning power. On the one hand, if it never is used, or not used appropriately when necessary, power loses its potency, and may be lost. On the other hand, power is subject to the laws of thermodynamics: subject to entropy. It is greatest in its potential, before it is used, when it is most often most effective. Once it is used, it begins to decline (though not necessarily in relation to the power of another, which may be reduced even more in a conflict). The troops engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot simultaneously be in Iran or Korea. If one focuses on the military aspects of power, a nation can be caught by the flypaper effect. To maintain a victory, troops have to remain stationed in the vicinity and are not available elsewhere. Additional armies can be raised and existing ones resupplied, but there are limits to that, and attempting to do so over time weakens the economic base that makes military power possible.

     Terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are problems that have not been adequately dealt with to date. But they are worldwide problems, requiring broad multilateral solutions. The world is too big, and even the greatest power is insufficient, to solve them with only limited support from other nations. A single power attempting to act unilaterally causes others to organize to resist it, when it needs them as collaborators in a venture of mutual interest.

     To the extent that it acts responsibly and respectfully, building rather than destroying international trust, the United States can have the moral authority to use the fact of its power to lead in the development of effective international approaches to these and other global issues, such as those involving justice, ecology and economy. To build support, the U.S. may have to offer giving up some small short run advantage to obtain collaboration for mutual long term gain. When done carefully, the profit from such investment is quite substantial. Would the United States, and the world as a whole, be much better off today (including militarily) if a decade ago the U.S. and the other atomic powers had agreed to move to phase out (or at least drastically reduce) their nuclear arsenals, in return for an enforceable program, with world wide verifiable inspections, to ensure that no other country or group obtained them? Since every government and nation is threatened by terrorism, would not an international process for effectively suppressing it be practical, building on the precedent of international agreement to outlaw airline high jacking? It is not possible, here, to set forth details for any particular collaborative program, which would have to be developed by inclusive international negotiations, in any case. What needs to be clear, is that the emergence of a new time requires a new and more holistic perspective and way of thinking.

These articles and opinions of the authors do not constitute the endorsement of Nonviolent Change nor its publisher, Organization Development Institute, or any of its staff, nor of CirclePoint which is housing the Nonviolent Change Journal.

©2002-2003. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent Change Journal is published by the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and international project of The Organization Development Institute.

Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.