The world after Iraq
| Date | 01 March 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200506000114 |
| Author | Bill Emmott |
| Published date | 01 March 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
BILL
EMMOTT
The
world
after
Iraq
How
can we
fail
next?
=
tREE
AND A
HALF
YEARS
AGO, after the bright, sunny, deadly New
York morning that was 11 September 2001, almost everyone agreed
that the world had changed forever: nothing would be the same again.
What
was really meant, for all the entirely genuine talk
of
unity and
global fellow-feeling, was that the UnitedStates had changed.
The
idea
was
that
the experience
of
the first attack on its mainland since my
countrymen burned the capitol in 1814, or more relevantly the first on
American soil since Pearl
Harbor
in 1941, would alter
the
way in
which Americans sawand approached the world. But, since America is
the world's largest economy and, even more important, its sole global
power, a change to America would also change the world.
Even then, for all the recollection
of
unity that is now assumed, peo-
ple were instantly divided
into
those who
thought
this change to
America's approach would be a good, salutary one for the world
and
those who thought it would be disastrous.
And
those in
that
second
category overlapped considerably with those who believed
that
in
some sense September 11th was America's fault: that its own policies
had brought about the mega-terrorism that we all saw on that day.
Now, in the effort to focus criticism on the later issue ofIraq, many
people have sought to argue
that
pretty
much
everyone
supported
America on the day after September 11 th and it was its later actions, its
unilateral, bull-headed, policies, that divided the world. But that is
not
really true.
The
divide has widened, yes. But it was already there in the
autumn
of
200 1.
BillEmmottis editorinchief
ofThe
Economist.
This
article
is
derived
froma
lecture
given
at the
McCort/Museum
in
Montreal,
15
September
2004.
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Winter
2004-2005
To continue reading
Request your trial