But Modelski’s model cautions us to consider another possibility instead. Rather than
the US’s military might and activity being a sign of its imperial strength, the notion of
imperial overstretch suggests that such developments are a sign of growing weakness.
In this interpretation, challenge to the agenda of the world leader has become so
intense that it must fight, and holes are being discovered
in its military capacity and
ideological shield.
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
S E T T I N G T H E G L O B A L G E O P O L I T I C A L C O N T E X T
45
Box 2.4 Abu Ghraib and the consequences for world
leadership
In the spring of 2004 a series of photographs hit the global media that shattered
the US’s attempt to portray its occupation of Iraq as a humanitarian mission of
the world leader intent on promoting human rights. Soldiers had taken pictures of
practices in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq of inmates being subjected to demeaning
and painful acts, tantamount to torture, designed to
break their resolve prior to
interrogation (Figure 2.4). The images included those of a terrified inmate warding
off a prison guard’s attack dog, an inmate forced to kneel as if performing oral
sex on another, laughing soldiers standing by a pyramid of naked detainees,
inmates being led around on leashes by prison guards, and a hooded man posing
as if on a crucifix with electric wires attached to his hands and penis.
In his
investigation of the US abuses, Major General Antonio Taguba found
practices that included:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom
handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape . . . sodomizing a
detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick,
and using military
working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attacks,
and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
Ideologically, Abu Ghraib was a disaster for the US’s portrayal of itself as world
leader, and will have lasting impacts. The photographs alienated politicians in
foreign countries who supported the US’s mission of creating democracies through
military presence, or put them into a position where they could no longer support
US actions because of negative public opinion. Obviously, the images inflamed
those already opposed to the US’s
role in Islamic countries, and were used to
justify their existing rhetoric of Americans as “infidels.”
The abuse in Abu Ghraib, along with allegations of torture at Camp X-Ray,
Guantanamo Bay, was not inevitable or predetermined. However, they were a
product of the world leader’s self-imposed policing mission and the dissemina-
tion of the images of torture undermined the ideological authority underlying
its position. In other words, the actions of the world
leader contradicted its
rhetoric.
Evidence of imperial overstretch?
Representation is only one aspect of geopolitics. We can also look at what the US, as
world leader, is actually doing; the policies it is forming, and interpret these through
the lens of imperial overstretch. A continuous debate concerning the war in Iraq was
the number of US troops needed for the initial invasion and the subsequent “post-
invasion” goal of forming a democratic Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
has been continually criticized for not deploying enough troops. In the US military
organization,
any large military operation, such as the invasion of Iraq, relies upon the
deployment of the National Guard, a military reserve of citizens. The deployment of
these soldiers (men and women) has an impact upon families, communities, and busi-
nesses
as mothers, fathers, neighbors, employees, etc. are sent overseas. The impact of
fighting has long-term effects too, as recruitment into the military and the reserve may
decline (see Box 2.5).
The dynamics of US troop deployment may also shed light upon the dynamics of
world leadership (see Table 2.2). “The presence of American forces overseas is one of
the most profound symbols of US commitment to allies and friends” (
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
