O it is wonderful to have a giant’s strength,
But tyrannous to use it like a giant.

Shakespeare, “Measure for Measure”

For Americans, it may seem like the most natural thing in the world, in the face of rapid military victory, to see the American flag flying over buildings in Baghdad that are now occupied by U.S. forces. To some Iraqi people, and to other people around the world, however, those flags are an ominous symbol.

What most Americans view as a campaign of Iraqi liberation—“operation Iraqi freedom”—others view as American imperialism. There is no doubt that America has the power to conquer and rule other countries. As a French diplomat put it recently, America is now a “hyper-power,” unrivaled in its military, political, and economic superiority.

This power has been demonstrated by the swiftness with which American forces, aided by the British, have seized Baghdad. With the loss of less than a hundred soldiers, the United States has essentially defeated an Iraqi force of a quarter of a million men. People around the globe, and especially America’s enemies, have good reason to worry about this kind of power.

The critics of America—a group that includes many Americans—are probably right to protest the symbolism of American flag-waving in occupied Baghdad. Truly powerful countries don’t need to preen. If this is a campaign to free Iraq from a wicked despot—“operation Iraqi freedom”—then the focus of the invasion of Baghdad should be the Iraqi people gaining their freedom.

This is not to say that American foreign policy is guided exclusively by benevolence. America, like other nations, has interests, and the foreign policy of a nation does and should advance its national self-interest. The standard for judging American foreign policy is one that asks whether America, in promoting its self-interest, also serves the larger goal of promoting peace and freedom.

In Iraq, the emerging answer is: yes. The Americans have arrived, and the Iraqis can now look forward to a brighter future. Once again the critics of American intervention have been proved wrong. They said it would be Vietnam all over again. They predicted vast numbers of civilian casualties, massive population displacement, untold suffering.

Instead America has shown that it can do in three weeks what the United Nations could not accomplish in more than a decade: the disarming of a dangerous tyrant. Yes, there may be some boastful flag-waving. Yes, there will have to be an interim government in Iraq under American supervision. But no, this is no imperialist project.

In Iraq—as in Grenada and Haiti and Bosnia—American troops moved in, and they will, as soon as they can, move out. America has no intention of ruling other countries, even though it has the power to do so. That’s what makes America different from traditional empires: it is a reluctant ruler, eager to bring its people home.

President Bush can demonstrate this to the world once the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces is complete. He can announce plans for a transition to Iraqi self-government, and declare that Iraq’s resources, including its oil wealth, belong to the Iraqis and not to anyone else. Such a step would be a more meaningful symbol of America’s true intentions than the display of the red, white, and blue over the vanquished buildings of Baghdad.

Click for a Printer Friendly Version