The costs of the Iraq war: A fall in U.S. power, prestige and influence

WASHINGTON — It was a decision that only President George W. Bush had the power to make: About 9 a.m. on March 19, 2003, in the Situation Room in the basement of the West Wing of the White House, he gave the "execute order" to begin the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Now, five years later, the consequences of that act will soon be beyond Bush's grasp. In 10 months, they'll land on the desk of his successor.

Thanks in part to the Iraq war, the next U.S. president will take office with America's power, prestige and popularity in decline, according to bipartisan reports, polls and foreign observers.

"The winner of the 2008 elections will command U.S. forces still at war in Iraq, Afghanistan and against elusive terrorists with a deadly reach. The U.S. economy will remain burdened. ... America's moral leadership and decision-making competence will continue to be questioned," begins a Georgetown University study of foreign policy choices for the next president released last month

There isn't much to inspire confidence: Oil prices are at an all-time high, the dollar is at new lows against the euro. Surveys find the United States' popularity and respect slipping in every part of the globe except Africa.

Not all of the challenges facing Bush's successor can be blamed on the invasion and the failure of civilian leadership to plan for what would happen next in Iraq. There are other forces at work, foreign policy specialists say, including an increasingly globalized economy with new centers of wealth and power, China's rise and the growth of Islamic extremism.

But because of the invasion of Iraq, "America's strategic position in the world has worsened," said Josef Joffe, the editor and publisher of Die Zeit, a German weekly that's sympathetic to the United States. "From a coldly realist perspective, Iraq was the wrong war against the wrong foe at the wrong time."

The removal of Saddam Hussein strengthened Iran and "by entangling itself in an interminable civil war, the U.S. has lost power to spare," Joffe said.

With improvements in security in much of Iraq over the last year, it still seems possible that the country could someday experience stability and even prosperity, thanks to its vast oil deposits.

But even under the best of circumstances, tens of thousands or more U.S. troops may be needed to stabilize Iraq throughout the next president's first term — and beyond.

That could limit the next president's options, even as he or she deals with more basic questions about how to restore the United States' standing in the world.

U.S. credibility also has been undermined, at home and abroad, by the administration's false claims about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida prior to the Iraq war.

'SOFT' POWER

Several recent blue-ribbon panels recommended that the next president make major changes in how the United States deals with the world.

He or she, they said, should rely more on "soft" or "smart" power — such as using diplomacy, promoting U.S. values and rebuilding alliances; use persuasion rather than coercion to achieve goals when possible; and invest more in nonmilitary tools such as public diplomacy and foreign aid.

More provocatively, they advocate replacing the war on terrorism as the focus of American security strategy. Instead, they say, the United States should be the leader in advancing peace, liberty and prosperity worldwide.

"Since 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than the more traditional values of hope and optimism. Suspicions of American power have run deep," Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under Bush, and Joseph Nye, a Pentagon official under President Bill Clinton, wrote in a December report published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"At the core of the problem is that America has made the war on terrorism the central component of its global engagement," they wrote.

That doesn't mean going soft on terrorists, said Chester Crocker, the co-chairman of the separate Georgetown University report, which also called for a new guiding principle for U.S. foreign policy.

But Crocker, an assistant secretary of state for Africa under President Ronald Reagan, said the war on terrorism has inflamed suspicions of U.S. motives, forced Washington to look the other way when its counterterrorism allies engage in bad behavior themselves and led to an over-focus on the Middle East.

"Obviously, we can't ignore these hot spots," he said. But "if all we really care about is what's going on in the struggle within the Islamic world, we're not a world power anymore."

Many specialists also advise a more subtle, patient and less hectoring approach when it comes to advancing global democracy, which was one of the justifications Bush gave for invading Iraq.

Instead, the invasion "set it back in multiple senses," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University expert on promoting democracy.

"We have to approach the whole thing on fresh terms," Diamond said, with a strategy that "is incremental, that is more gradual, that doesn't over-reach."