Maybe there is just a (temporary?) shortage in supply of suicide bombers... I recently heard about a kid as a suicide bomber.

Dan:

Quibble -- Anne Applebaum is answering a broader question -- "Will things come out all right [for the USA] in the end?". I think her answer to the more important question is about right.

As for how things work out in Iraq? I figure I know as much as George W. Bush about that one. Which means I'm keeing my mouth shut.

Applebaum makes a valid point, but she isnt raising an argument she is assuming a conclusion.

IF Iraq were to end up reasonably well, you'd see those same miffed parties doing the backpeddling. Reagan went through the same thing and he ended up being right. Will this Bush? He has to succeed to find out, and we're still a long way from that.

We're way too close to Iraq to judge the long term affects- particularly without knowing the ending! Thats a rather important detail, no? If Europe retains its problems with domestic Islamicists, but Iraq becomes a success and influences moderation in the Middle East- we may end up looking like prophets on this thing.

Of course if the violence explodes once the surge is rolled back its a moot point. The US will be out in short order and its pretty obvious the enterprise was a blunder of huge proportions.

I think its a little early and a little disingenous to start setting the table for why a successfull Iraq is still a net failure. It COULD be but that is counterintuitive.

So the argument is that any outcome is bad b/c the US has damaged its image in the world. But what if, improbably I would agree, but she posited the scenario, things turn out well? Then who loses face? The naysayers, the critics, indeed, many of the anti-Americans. I say the outcome matters A LOT. I was against the war, and have been pessimistic on the outcome. But I am all for a positive outcome. Most b/c of its strategic consequences in the region, and some of these consequences are due to helping America's image (and perhaps more importantly less risk of regional instability, etc. Which if the area blows up, will hurt our image, if that is the key factor Appelbaum believes it to be).

Is the AA argument really that anti Americanism is so bad, and other strategic consequences of success so trivial, that success means little or nothing?

Or is DD throwing out bait/meat, such an illogical but inflammatory argument by AA?

"Far worse is the fact that—however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy becomes a decade from now—our conduct of the war in Iraq has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. "

This kind of makes me wonder what kind of illusions our natural friends and supporters harboured about our military and political competence. After Kennedy's cack-handed bungling in Cuba, Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon's bungling in Vietnam, Carter's mismanagement of the revolution in Iran and the hostage crisis (and possible involvement in the Kwangju massacre), the various sordid little wars of Reagan's administration (Nicaragua, Grenada), Clinton's misadventures in Somalia (with the UN) and the Balkans (without), and his attempt to restore democracy to Haiti (so successful the US and France had to go in again recently to force Aristide out, just like the we did with Cedras) . . . what illusions could they possibly have? Were they just not paying attention for the past 40 years?

Pretty much the only American military/political intervention I can think of that actually came off smoothly was Gulf War I. Everything else has been the usual muddling through -- blowing up embassies, accidental massacres, precipitous retreats, etc. We came out all right from all that -- a bit bruised but with fundamentals still strong -- and I honestly don't see the qualitative difference this time around.

"Everything else has been the usual muddling through -- blowing up embassies, accidental massacres, precipitous retreats, etc. We came out all right from all that -- a bit bruised but with fundamentals still strong -- and I honestly don't see the qualitative difference this time around."

One word: Oil.

We are now playing around in the part of the world that provides us with the energy crack we need to keep our civilization churning at a discount that we have enjoyed for decades.

A bad Iraq, a jumpy Iran, an unstable Saudi Arabia can affect us in the pocketbook much, much, much more than any of the conflicts you stated... except Vietnam... maybe.

As mentioned above, the Applebaum quote isn't an argument so it's difficult to judge without knowing her premises. Certainly, European governments are more friendly to us than they have been in some time. China and Russia were likely never going to be that friendly, and much of the Arab world rejoiced on 9/11.

There seems to be a utopian view on the left regarding both the US's past military success (invariably after a period of defeat and adaptation), and the view of the US in the world pre-Iraq. Many seem to forget that Clinton was regularly greeted by rioting protestors when visiting Europe.

Oh please, Applebaum's being intellectually lazy. The Germans were running 'curveball' and it was the Germans who wouldn't let the CIA talk with him. German intell also thought that Iraq was about 3 - 4 months away from going nuclear. Anybody else remember that?
The European 'friends' spend their defense money maintaining equipment suited for the Cold War, and as this equipment gets older they'll be spending even more money on it. European armies might look large on paper, but it is only on paper.
And yes, the Army and Marines have turned the situation around in Iraq - although I can sense that disappoints you lot.

My sentiments are pretty much along the lines of those expressed by Taeyoung and Rob, above. I am deeply dubious of the view that our actions *changed* any feelings, as opposed to simply *unmasking* them. We now know pretty much where our "allies" stand, and how much the sentiment "we are all Americans" is worth.

Rather than yet another self-excoriating article from an American about what awful lessons our allies are surely learning from this, I'd like to see the other side: A worried article or two from foreign writers about the lessons they presume Americans are drawing from the rest of the world.

If (yes, big if) Iraq actually works out, will any of them be saying "The United States begged for our help in bringing down a corrupt and murderous dictator. We told them to bugger off. In retrospect, was that the right -- or prudent -- thing to do?"

- Alaska Jack

There are a lot of harmful ideas that Iraq has destroyed. After Somalia and Lebanon, there were a lot of experts who thought America would always flee at the first sign of casualties. Everyone knew that the "three year rule" meant that you just had to hang on for three years + however long it took to get to the next election and you'd win any war with the US.

More to the point, the average villager knew that the terrorists knew that, which meant that they knew that the terrorists were likely to win, which meant that they'd be insane to throw in their lot with the Americans. Any future would be insurrectionist leader will have to persuade locals to opt in to a decade long struggle, which may be a harder case to make.

It's also worth noting that India is perhaps as big a gain for US international support as Europe's new pro-Americans. It's amazing to see how mature India has been in responding to the constant terrorist attacks over the past few years, for instance.

There's also, of course, been a massive proliferation of FTAs and other formalised channels of cooperation across Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim.