How Bush's New World Order Became Today's No World Order

George H.W. Bush made a bold pronouncement on Sept. 11, 1990.Even though Iraq had recently invaded Kuwait and the collapse of the Soviet Union was still more than a year away, Bush proclaimed the imminent dawn of a "new world order" that would be "freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace."Despite the lofty sentiments, Bush's "new world order" has dead-ended in the "no world order" of 2017.What went wrong? For starters, it's worth looking back at the term's origins.In September 1990, the U.S. was pulling together a coalition of the willing, with the tacit approval of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, to repel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.Confident that he could face down Saddam Hussein, Bush anticipated not only military victory but a different kind of international community. To describe it, Bush borrowed the "new world order" concept from Gorbachev, who two years earlier had used it to support a stronger role for the United Nations and a reduced role for violence in the international arena.Yet Bush was less interested in the U.N. and more focused on insisting that "there is no substitute for American leadership."Indeed, Bush devoted nearly half his 1990 speech to strengthening U.S. power by setting "America's economic house in order" — cutting taxes, debt, energy dependency and even (prudently) Pentagon spending. In this way, Bush aimed to provide a stronger underpinning for American leadership in the emerging post-Cold War era.Bush may have talked of "a world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle," but the thrust of U.S. policy in the wake of Bush's speech suggested a different world order altogether.Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq in early 1991 demonstrated the cold geopolitical calculations behind the "new world order." The administration, despite considerable congressional and popular opposition, decided to pursue the military option against Saddam rather than wait to see if diplomacy or economic sanctions would achieve the same result.  Continue reading...