Today, when the military part of the operation in Iraq has been successfully completed, the main task for Americans has become the establishment of stability and predictability inside the country. It should be noted that, with all the mistakes and blunders that Americans have done, not one of the hypothesized apocalyptic scenarios actually took place. On the eve of the operation, there was talk of the possibility of Iraq using chemical weapons, flooding the country by blowing up the dams, millions of suicide bombers, national uprisings, etc. This fact alone, in my view, is a positive development: the very worst that could have happened did not happen after all.

I think that at this stage the Americans would gladly transfer a variety of functions to representatives of other states or international organizations - functions like, for instance, policing, border controls, distributing food and water etc. - because these functions are labor-intensive and there is no sense in using military troops to complete them. But there are a number of difficulties. First, the US isn’t sure that others would do the job better or more effectively. Second, there is no guarantee that others are rushing to step in - it’s a thankless task. And third, it’s not a fact that Americans are ready to appease allies by sharing the political and economic influence they currently have in Iraq . This has to do less with Bush and more with those American companies that have invested resources or lobbied for this war, dreaming of getting a piece of certain resources in Iraq.

In my view, it would be incorrect to think that after Iraq , Americans will begin to replay the Iraqi scenario in other parts of the world (for instance, in other countries belonging to the axis of evil). The very concept of an “axis of evil” is no more than a myth created by the White House, just like the idea that countries who belong to it will be attacked in seriatim. It’s just that at a certain moment there was a need to explain, in very simple words, how the US will react to new threats. After September 11, Americans found themselves pressured by time: something had to be done as soon as possible, but there was no strategy or philosophy of action. It was at this point that there was an attempt (an unsuccessful one, in my view) to present US enemies as a certain united whole.

In reality, solving the problems of the “axis of evil” fragments into a number of issues. Each country in this axis must be dealt with separately. It’s obvious that the solutions for Iran and North Korea will be fundamentally different, both from each other and from Iraq . In that sense, the “Iraqi model” was created only for Iraq and only for the circumstances of spring 2003. I think if this problem were to be solved now, the model would have been completely different. No matter how much people might dislike it, the US should be given their due: both economically and intellectually, the US is able to “tailor the suit” for each separate occasion, avoiding being repetitive in fashion and material.

It’s no secret that the US wants to solve the understandable and self-interested task of significantly increasing the level of their national security. Today, Americans are increasingly thinking about what they can do alone, and whom they can do it to. But clearly, “going it alone” in ensuring stability and safety on a global scale is a costly enterprise - no army in the world can police every foxhole - as well as a thankless task, prompting immediate concerns about hegemonic inclinations.

Therefore, there is now an idea to pursue stability not by further posting military bases around the world (this is a technique from the last century, and perhaps even from the 19^th century), but by creating regimes that can successfully solve problems on their own territories that Americans troops would otherwise be forced to deal with.

That’s why Americans are gradually shifting toward creating functioning democratic models around the world that would not only be friendly toward the US , the West, and Western values, but would also provide a positive influence on the entire region.

In that respect, it’s important for Americans to build inside Iraq a working model of an Arab democracy, an Arab market, and an Arab state that respects human rights and freedoms and is able to remain in control of its direct functions (control of borders and territories, combating terrorism, extremism, and criminality, etc.). This is especially important because there are few such states in the Arab world, which cannot help but worry the US . I think the American actions in Iraq should be viewed through the prism of these intentions.  

Nikolai Zlobin is the Director of Russian and Asian programs at the Center for Defense Information and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Profile News Agency.