Ozymandias redux - Editor's Note

Reason, June, 2003 by Nick Gillespie

I'M WRITING THIS as U.S.--excuse me, coalition--troops are rolling into Baghdad virtually unopposed. As statues of Saddam Hussein are pulled to the ground all over Iraq, it's tough not to think of Shelley's "Ozymandias of Egypt," in which a "traveller" recounts stumbling across a half-buried monument to a long-forgotten tyrant:

And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch faraway.

As of press time, it's clear that it's a new day in Iraq, one in which Saddam and his Ba'athist party will play no role. Yet many important questions remain: Is Saddam dead or alive? Will we ever find the "weapons of mass destruction" whose existence was used to justify the invasion? Will the Iraqi people--and those in neighboring countries--view occupying troops as liberators or the latest set of oppressors? Who exactly will be running Iraq? What effect will any of this have on Al Qaeda and other terrorists?

For Americans, no question is more pressing than the one we ask in our cover story, "What Next for U.S. Foreign Policy?" (page 22). Regard less of how you felt about war with Iraq (I was opposed), an unclear and dangerous geopolitical future awaits us all. "The invasion of Iraq has answered some...questions but raised still more, as analysts debate whether such wars will undermine the stability of the Middle East, whether that status quo is worth preserving in the first place, and how seriously to take the president's talk of malting Iraq a beacon of liberty and democracy," writes Associate Editor Jesse Walker. In interviews with a hawk (Ralph Peters), a realist (Benjamin Schwarz), and a dove (Gene Sharp),we present very different visions of how the U.S. should proceed in a post-Iraq world order.

Contributing Editor Michael McMenamin's essay on Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy also speaks to the "What next?" question ("Teddy Roosevelt's Hidden Legacy," page 56). In reviewing Warren Zimmermann's First Great Triumph, McMenamin argues that unlike Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt practiced a generally wise and restrained foreign policy while occupying the White House. Given that, writes McMenamin, it's good news that George W. Bush and his top adviser Karl Rove "regard Roosevelt as a hero. We can only hope that they recognize the genuine foreign policy differences between Roosevelt and Wilson--and that they remember what happened after the messianic Wilson mounted his white horse and charged off to make the world safe for democracy."

A great deal may be riding on that recognition, including whether the United States will someday face its own Ozymandias moment on the lone and level sands of the Middle East and elsewhere.