Did the US win its war on terror?

So, al-Qaida, already a shadow of its former self, has lost its leader. Having failed to carry out a successful attack on US soil in the decade since 9/11, it might appear that the US can finally declare, 'mission accomplished'. Although terrorist attacks will continue, the fear of an asymmetric war resulting in Americans' death on the scale of 9/11 is growing distant.

Yet, at a deeper level, the conclusion may be premature. Terrorist attacks may have been beaten back from American shores. But the deeper, motivating conflict is more complicated.

Osama's war was with US-backed regimes in the Middle East. His strategy was to weaken American support for its regional allies. By bringing that conflict home to ordinary Americans, he aimed to lower popular support for their country's Mideast policy.

But the US wasn't going to budge. Oil, the lifeblood of the modern industrial economy, had to keep flowing into the veins of global markets, lest price rises derail economic growth.

The US would never abandon regimes friendly to it, like Saudi Arabia - not to mention its regional ally, Israel. On the contrary, it sought to weaken those governments hostile to it, like Iran or Iraq.

horribly wrong

And this is where its war arguably went horribly wrong. When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003, it used the cover of the war on terror to tip the regional balance of interests in its favour. The al-Qaida link to Iraq was based on a flimsy case from the start, now exposed as little better than lies.

Still, hard-nosed analysts will say all's fair in love and war, and that this was a noble lie. But if the war in Iraq was intended to benefit the US, it arguably had the opposite effect. It actually did some of al-Qaida's work for it.

The stated plan had been for the US to quickly invade, then use Iraqi oil revenues to cover the cost of the occupation. A government friendly to the US and Israel would be installed, and the US would keep military bases in Iraq, from which it could keep a close eye on its Iranian foe.

But it didn't go according to plan. Because the White House planned to get in and out of Iraq quickly, US troops advanced on Baghdad so fast that they did not secure the areas through which they marched. An insurgency emerged in the wake of the advance. This resulted in years of fighting, and kept oil from coming back on stream. The US ran up a monstrous debt fighting the insurgency, and may pay the price with slower growth for decades. The new Iraqi government ended up considerably influenced by Iran, and the population turned against the Americans. Now they are being told to leave.

plan blotched

So, Iran is stronger, the US is poorer, saddled with debts, and has buried thousands of its own young men and women who died fighting the insurgency.

At the time of the US invasion, its architects - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the coterie of intellectuals around them - were criticised by their foes for being cynical Machiavellians. That does an injustice to Machiavelli. He wasn't a moron.

It's one thing to lie in pursuit of what you consider a higher purpose. It's another thing to completely mess up the purpose, and end up worse off than if you'd done nothing.

Today, the US watches helplessly as the Arab spring runs on, well beyond its control, remaking the Middle East in an image that will likely be more Islamist than before. Of the governments friendly to it, only the United Arab Emirates is not wrestling with a popular uprising. It can hardly counterbalance Iran's growing influence.

With friends like the Bush gang in power, America didn't need enemies. They went out and created them.

John Rapley is the Bradlow fellow at the South African Institute of International Affairs. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and rapley.john@gmail.com.