Iraq, Liberal Wars and Illiberal Containment

Abstract

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were liberal wars, in that they were justified as part of a campaign to prevent existential attacks on the Western way of life. But defensively, in terms of protecting liberal society, the Iraq War was not needed; offensively, in terms of extending liberal society, it has been a failure. The human costs have been high, especially in Iraqi lives but also coalition forces, and this has led to a rapid erosion of public support. The experience of Iraq may well result in a reluctance to engage in ‘offensive liberal wars’. An alternative course to a policy of active regime change and intervention is something akin to containment. The liberal case for containment is that it is preferable to an illiberal war and, more positively, it ultimately depends on the strength and durability of Western countries. The liberal case against containment is that biding time requires tolerating continuing injustice and tyranny. Containment also depends on allies who are not necessarily liberal in themselves but who happen to be on the target's periphery. The risk here is of commitments to regimes which cause their own instability, from which it is harder to save them than from the threat of external aggression.