The roots of Bush's confrontation strategy

US President George W. Bush justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the current confrontation with Iran and Syria, in terms of his so-called war on terror. Observers and commentators usually describe the current confrontation context in the Middle East as the consequence of the 9/11 tragedy.

In reality, the Iraq war and confrontation with Syria and Iran are embedded in new strategic directions designed to preserve the unrivalled American power status that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union. These policy orientations predated 9/11 and the so-called war on terror.

The September 11, 2001 tragedy facilitated the implementation and the marshalling of public support for these strategic orientations, it did not create them. In the wake of the Second World War, the US emerged as the unchallenged superpower of the world.

Unlike other belligerents, its territories were not occupied or devastated, its economy not ruined, and its military emerged stronger than ever. In addition, it was the only country to possess, and to use, the ultimate weapon: the nuclear bomb.

Self-assured and imperial-like, it projected its cultural and political values as the sole defining criteria of legitimacy in international relations. The Soviet Union, China, and the communist countries were declared illegitimate regimes and the task for American foreign policy was to "contain" communism within its borders.

Fatal miscalculation

The logic of the containment policy led to confrontations with revolutionary movements around the world, suspected and accused of communist leanings and orientations. It also led to a fatal strategic miscalculation.

Policy planners in Washington argued that if one single country in the so-called free world were allowed to fall to communism, there would be a domino effect bringing about the collapses of pro-Western regimes and the spread of the contagious communist ideology.

This logic led directly to the Korean war in the 1950s and to the Vietnam War in the 1960s. The inability to stop the revolutionary communist movement in Northern Vietnam from overwhelming the corrupt pro-Western government in South Vietnam, led to a humiliating American withdrawal.

A policy of detente in the 1970s seemed to suggest a recognition on the part of Washington that there existed a rough equality of destructive nuclear power between the two superpowers. Direct confrontation was out of the question.

Under the Nixon doctrine, Washington proposed to fight communism, and nationalism, through proxy agents in various regions. The Shah of Iran was one such noteworthy agent in the Middle East. Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was another ally entrusted with eliminating Marxism in his country and set an example for the rest of Latin America.

With the collapse of the communist regimes and the end of the Cold War, policy planners in Washington set out to formulate new directions and chart strategic priorities for the post-Cold War era and for American priorities in it.

The foundations of Washington's vision of a New World Order can be found in two crucial documents prepared by officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House at the end of the Cold War.

The Defense Planning Guidance documents provide an American blueprint for the post-Cold War era. The first is a 46-page document prepared under the supervision of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the Pentagon's Undersecretary for policy.

The second document, "Prevent the Emergence of a New Rival" was prepared by a committee of experts headed by Admiral David Jeremia, Assistant to the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell. (New York Times, March 8, 1992.)

Both documents provide an authoritative and clear exposition of official American thinking about how America must shape the post Cold-War era. First, the policy planners argue that the unique position of the US as the only superpower left after the collapse of the Soviet Union must be preserved against all challenges from anywhere in the world.

To this end, the first political and military objective of the US in the new world order must be "to prevent the emergence of a new rival, either in the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere..."

Second, the policy planners argue that American domination of the new world order must be clear, unequivocal and American leadership strong and assertive, if America is to maintain its supremacy unchallenged. The US must therefore strive to "convince potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role" in the new world order.

Third, the US has in effect become the only power capable of enforcing respect for the established order. While it may not wish to act as a policeman redressing every wrong, it will nonetheless decide which wrongs may be overlooked and ignored and which transgressions must be redressed by force if necessary.

First among the vital interests identified as requiring forceful action was the "access to vital raw materials, primarily [Arabian] Gulf oil ?"

Professor Adel Safty is UNESCO Chair of Leadership and President of the School of Government and Leadership, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul.