One of the perks of working on politics is that every now and then, you get invited to beautiful places where you get to meet interesting people. Earlier this week, I was at a history retreat organised by Germany’s Körber Foundation. The venue was a literal castle:
The attendees were mostly historians, political scientists and (former) diplomats.
Much of the discussion centred around the changing world order. How did the liberal international order unravel? What will replace it? Should the West be more humble? Unsurprisingly, the aftermath of 9/11 was discussed at length. The broader War on Terror was disastrous for America’s standing in the world, after all.
But it did make me wonder: Why exactly? Why did it hurt America so much? One answer to that question centres around illegality, hypocrisy and norms (or the violation thereof). George W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and it doesn’t take a lawyer to see that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. President Obama authorised hundreds of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia. Oftentimes, the victims of those strikes weren’t terrorists but civilians that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A street vendor, a wedding guest, a child with the “wrong” father.
So when the United States and its allies now talk about defending international law as Russia kills Ukrainians, many people outside the West can’t take Washington seriously. In that context, it doesn’t help that Trump is currently waging another (illegal) war in the Middle East. In this version of events, the international order that Washington built has unraveled in large part because Washington routinely breaks international law while violating norms that many of us hold dear. That, plus hypocrisy. Nobody likes to get lectured, especially not by these people.
None of this helped, clearly, but is it really the main reason these wars did so much to hurt the United States? Perhaps the more likely explanation is that they hurt so much because they were failures. The United States lost thousands of soldiers as well as an ungodly amount of money in wars that ultimately didn’t advance its national interests. The Iraq War contributed to the rise of the Islamic State and the return of the Taliban to power in Kabul was the ultimate humiliation. And that’s just the cost for the United States itself: For the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, these conflicts were absolutely devastating.
This failure, much more than the actual breaking of international law, hurt the United States. To illustrate, imagine a scenario in which both Afghanistan and Iraq work out. Let’s say the Taliban never regains power and Afghanistan turns into an imperfect democracy. After removing Saddam Hussein from office, the United States establishes a stable government in Iraq that delivers for its citizens. The insurgency is brought under control and Iraq as a whole becomes more prosperous. Admittedly, this is rather difficult to imagine because both wars were always likely to fail, but entertain the idea for a moment. Now instead of spending billions and billions of dollars on these useless wars, imagine American politicians had spent the money on trains and schools and hospitals. Again, I’m not sure this was ever a truly realistic option, but let’s say it happened that way.
If all this had somehow happened, would we really look back now and think of Afghanistan and Iraq as milestones in the unravelling of the liberal international order because the United States broke international law? Because it violated international norms? I don’t know the answer to that question but I suspect it would be no.
Rules, process - all that matters in international politics just as it does in domestic politics. But there’s also legitimacy in getting things done. And I suspect in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, that matters more. Look to Venezuela and Iran, for example.
The military operation to remove Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro was illegal. But does anyone really care? Not a lot of people died, it was quick and it “worked” in the sense that American soldiers did manage to kidnap Maduro. Venezuela didn’t descend into civil war, Americans are paying little economic price for the attack. In the long-run, they might even benefit from it. Whether you agree with the operation or not, it was a display of American power.
Now compare that to the attack on Iran, which is hugely unpopular not just in the United States but also in much of the rest of the world. Is it unpopular because it’s illegal? No. It’s unpopular because it didn’t work. Iran’s military power might be severely degraded, but Tehran can still inflict great damage on its neighbours. Trump has no idea how to open the Strait of Hormuz and while the world economy isn’t in freefall because of it, things are getting more expensive for all of us. And that nuclear programme? The problem isn’t solved. The regime, meanwhile, appears to be somewhat stable. If anything, Iran might now be ruled by people who are even more hostile to the United States than the previous batch. Those are the things that make the attack unpopular, and they are also why countries are changing their relationship to the United States.
The liberal international order isn’t unraveling because America broke international law, it’s unraveling because America’s relative power is declining. And that’s happening, at least in some part, because Americans are making stupid decisions that (a) expose US weakness and (b) weaken the United States further.
But anyway, aside from thinking about America’s decline, I recorded two podcasts at the castle. The first is with Sergey Radchenko, a historian at Johns Hopkins SAIS. Moscow has always used oil and gas as a political weapon. I sat down with Sergey to trace how they did it and why it failed so often. We discussed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the war in Ukraine and a whole lot more. You can watch the full conversation below:
Hope you find it interesting! We’re now at 20 episodes, and it was definitely one of my favourite conversations thus far. Thanks for listening.
More soon!
-MD
The failure to succeed was tired to the failure to follow international laws. It turns out that they are there for very good reasons, chief being that breaking them leads to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Part of the failure in the attack on Afghansitan was a lack of moral authority within the country itself. Our pretense to gift them with democracy when they live in a tribal economy was shortsighted and disastrous. Following international laws would have prevented this humiliation.
I would be rather more careful in comparing operations from the past to Venezuella. Especially since Trump acts with such blatant disregard to any notion of American national interest, however you may define it. I do agree that the intentions matter much less than the actions themselves, but arguing that the ends justify the means is only possible in retrospect, not in the moment. In the moment we never know the results, and if the result is a world where rules matter less, this becomes rather tricky to argue that the ends were justified.
So yes, these may be viewed as separate, but only for past matters, not for ongoing