A Belated Question

What are the long-term consequences of American unilateralism--namely, the willingness of President W. Bush to employ American military force unrestrained by international consensus or the United Nations?

The answer is increased global insecurity--no one knows who the US will decide to strike next. Additionally, the status quo rules for the use of armed force have changed. If it's acceptable for the US to pursue its interests abroad, unilaterally, using diplomatic, economic and military force to strong-arm lesser countries into compliance, then there is no moral ground to condemn countries such as Russia and China for doing the same. In fact, it's in their interest to cooperate, because the world's sole superpower is being downright bully-ish in pursuing its interests. And they can even use "security" and "combatting terrorism" to justify expansion into other spheres of influence.

The President's actions abroad (the global war on terror, the iraq war, ignoring the UN and global cooperation) and at home (encroachments on civil liberties and the right of habeas corpus, the Patriot Act, labeling dissidents as unpatriotic, labeling criticism as aiding and abetting the enemy) may not be actually immoral, unjustified, and a threat to human rights and the stability of the international community.

But they belong to--and by similarity tacitly lend approval to--the international rulebook of totalitarian and imperialistic governments. They have placed the United States squarely into a moral and structural grey area where totalitarian states exercise military force to achieve their own interests unrestrained by the necessity of membership within an international community. In undermining the authority of international institutions like the United Nations and by ignoring treaty obligations, the cowboy president has made the world a distinctly less orderly, and potentially less peaceful, place. If the United States can invade weaker countries in the name of security, while leveraging economic and political power to obtain consent and compliance from other countries, who is to stop Russia, China, India, or Pakistan (all nuclear-armed countries) from doing the same?

We should be wary of exercising "we can, and we will" diplomacy--lest we be held to the same principle in a weaker moment. This especially worries me in a world where basic democratic freedoms and institutions are disappearing under strongmen such as Hugo Chavez (yes, Steve, it does pain me to say it) and Vladimir Putin.