Dick Cheney and the birth of America’s forever war

The death of Dick Cheney at the age of eighty four closes a chapter in American political history that continues to cast a long and often troubling shadow across the world. Few figures of the twenty first century came to define the projection of American power, the tactics of national security, and the ideology driving the American state as sharply as Cheney. His admirers have called him a patriot of clarity and resolve, a leader who steered the United States through its darkest modern hour after the attacks of September eleven. His critics have called him the architect of overreach, secrecy, and moral erosion, a man who weaponised fear and transformed the post Cold War moment of unrivaled American dominance into an age of perpetual war, democratic strain at home, and damaged credibility abroad. To reflect on Cheney’s legacy is to trace the trajectory of the United States from the triumphalism of the 1990s to the bruised and weary superpower of today.

Cheney’s stature rests most visibly on his role as vice president under George W Bush, yet his influence permeated decades of American security thinking. As a congressman and later as secretary of defence under George H W Bush, he embodied a worldview rooted in American primacy and scepticism toward international constraints. The fall of the Soviet Union offered, in his view, not a moment for restraint but a strategic opening to affirm American dominance and prevent the rise of rival powers. It was a logic that would later animate the neoconservative movement’s vision of pre-emptive strength and global intervention, a school of thought that fused moral certainty with military assertiveness, and which viewed the unipolar moment not as a fragile responsibility but as a mandate to reshape global order.

After the attacks of two thousand one, Cheney became the most forceful advocate of this agenda within the Bush administration. He pressed for a doctrine of preemption, advancing the conviction that waiting for threats to fully materialise was a luxury the United States could no longer afford. The invasion of Afghanistan was largely viewed as an unavoidable response to Al Qaeda, but Iraq became the crucible of Cheney’s strategic imagination, a test of whether American power could reorder the Middle East, deter adversaries, and install democratic structures through force. The promise was sweeping, the consequences seismic. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Sectarian violence erupted, destabilising Iraq and rippling across the region. American casualties mounted, Iraqi civilian deaths climbed into the hundreds of thousands, and a war justified in the language of liberation became globally synonymous with hubris, misjudgment, and the erosion of international law.

READ: Ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney, who pushed for Iraq war, dies at 84

Cheney’s unyielding defence of the Iraq War, long after public opinion and much of the political establishment turned against it, cemented his image as the immovable ideologue of Washington. Yet the war was only part of his legacy. The world Cheney fought to build was girded by a security architecture unprecedented in both reach and secrecy. The creation of a vast surveillance apparatus, defended with insistence that liberties must bend to threat, altered the balance between citizen and state. The policy of targeted killings, expanded detention powers, and the network of secret prisons abroad signalled a willingness to bypass judicial oversight and international norms. Enhanced interrogation techniques, a euphemism that history increasingly treats as synonymous with torture, became emblematic of a moral line crossed. Cheney did not apologise, instead insisting that such measures protected American lives and were justified by necessity, a stance that alarmed allies, fuelled radicalisation abroad, and undermined the moral authority the United States long claimed to wield.

Domestically, Cheney championed a muscular theory of executive power, pushing the vice presidency far beyond its traditional boundaries. He saw the executive branch as the primary guardian of national security and worked relentlessly to expand presidential authority in the name of wartime prerogative. This posture left a constitutional legacy that continues to shape debates on surveillance, war powers, and the limits of emergency authority. Even as later administrations unwound some policies, many pillars of the post 9/11 security state endured, a testament to the depth of his influence but also to the difficulty democracies face in retreating from fear driven governance.

The world’s reaction to Cheney’s passing has been measured, tinged less with mournful reverence than with sombre recognition of a man whose decisions transformed geopolitics. In Europe, where the Iraq War fractured alliances and deepened scepticism toward American strategic judgment, his legacy remains divisive. For many in the Middle East, Cheney symbolised an era of foreign intervention that promised freedom while delivering instability, disillusionment, and the bitter rise of extremist groups that capitalised on chaos. In parts of Asia and Latin America, where American power has long been met with wary pragmatism, his tenure reinforced the perception of Washington as a nation quick to assert military solutions to complex political problems. Yet there are also voices, particularly among security hawks and leaders facing their own authoritarian rivals, who still see Cheney as a figure of clarity in a world now defined by rising threats from Russia, China, and transnational terrorism. They argue that his ruthlessness was not aberration but realism, and that twenty first century geopolitics may yet vindicate aspects of his worldview.

Within the United States, Cheney’s legacy has undergone an unusual evolution. Long reviled by liberals and many moderates, he later became a surprising, if uneasy, ally to defenders of democratic institutions during the Trump era, when he condemned efforts to overturn the two thousand twenty election and supported his daughter Liz Cheney’s stand against her own party. This late chapter did little to soften the broader judgment on his record, yet it added a note of complexity to a figure often painted only in stark contrast. Cheney remained unwavering in his principles, but the same steely resolve that once pushed America into a war of choice drove him to reject a nationalist populism that threatened constitutional order. In a paradox characteristic of American history, the man who expanded executive authority in the name of security also emerged as a critic of those who wielded power without regard for democratic norms.

History will not grant Cheney an uncomplicated verdict. His defenders will point to an era of profound uncertainty, a moment when fear and vulnerability demanded decisive leadership. His critics will counter that the most consequential decisions of his career flowed not from necessity but from ideology, and that the world he sought to mould ultimately weakened the very superpower he aimed to secure. As America navigates a multipolar world, scarred by wars without victory and challenged by rivals emboldened by its missteps, the contours of Cheney’s legacy remain sharply visible. He leaves behind a security state both powerful and contested, alliances strained and recalibrated, and a nation still grappling with the costs of choosing force where patience and diplomacy may have offered a different path.

Dick Cheney’s passing invites neither uncomplicated reverence nor simple condemnation. It demands sober reflection on the price of power, the temptations of certainty, and the peril inherent in believing that history bends to will alone. The world he shaped still lives with the consequences of his convictions, and the United States he sought to protect continues to wrestle with the shape of its role. In that struggle, Cheney remains present, a towering and controversial reminder that the decisions of leaders do not end with their lives, but echo through the choices nations make long after they are gone.

READ: The shallowness of the Gaza Plan is finally showing 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.