Iraq war: Mission failed

The political, economic and moral implications of this military disaster could haunt us for years to come

Topics: Iraq war, Foreign policy, Middle East, ,

Iraq war: Mission failedBarack Obama; George W. Bush (Credit: AP/Reuters)

The United States is leaving Iraq. It is not leaving because it accomplished its mission of replacing a hostile regime in that country with a friendly regime. America is leaving because the Iraqis are kicking America’s soldiers out. The U.S. has replaced one hostile regime in Iraq with another hostile regime.

If ever there were a complete foreign policy disaster, it has been the Iraq war. Most foreign policy failures are imperfect idiocy. At least elements of the failed policy made sense at the time. By invading Iraq, the U.S. carried idiocy to perfection. The Iraq war was a catastrophe for the United States in every way—strategic, economic, political and moral.

Strategic. From the end of the Gulf War in February 1991 to the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, the U.S. pursued a policy of “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq. Though far less costly than the invasion of Iraq would prove to be, this dual containment policy was expensive, in part because of the cost of U.S. occupation of part of Iraq and frequent bombing of the territory that Saddam still held.

There is much we have yet to be learned about the deliberations of the George W. Bush administration, but it is clear that one of the strategic goals of the invasion of Iraq was to replace the policy of dual containment with a policy of containment of Iran. Iran, the enemy of both Israel and America’s Sunni Arab protectorates like Saudi Arabia, would be encircled by permanent, well-garrisoned U.S. military bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraqi people, the neoconservative policymakers of the Bush administration seem to have hoped, would welcome Americans as liberators and allow their country to be turned into another South Korea or Okinawa—a permanent staging ground for American hegemony in the Middle East.

Instead, eight years after the war began, America’s military is so loathed in Iraq that it is being expelled by the Iraqi government. America’s soldiers are leaving because Iraq refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement, which exempts American soldiers from local laws. These agreements are the norm in other countries where the U.S. has stationed large numbers of troops, including Japan and South Korea. They trust that the American military will punish crimes by American soldiers committed in its country. The fact that Iraq refuses to exempt U.S. soldiers from prosecution under its own laws demonstrates the extent to which the misconduct of the U.S. military and its mercenary contractors alienated the Iraqi population.



In addition to refusing to host permanent American bases, the Iraqi government is also refusing to play its assigned role as strategic counter-balance to Iran. Indeed, under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the new democratic Iraq has aligned itself with Iran and supports Syria’s autocratic regime against Arab spring protesters. One wonders what the architects of the Iraq war would have said, if told by a visitor from the future back in 2003 that as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran would have a new ally in the Middle East. Or that democratic Iraq’s new friend, the Syrian regime, would crush protesters claiming that they are inspired by … al-Qaida!

Economic. Remember the Bush administration’s assertions that the Iraq war would pay for itself? On March 27, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee that Iraqi oil would pay for the costs of the war: “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” In a press conference on Oct. 2, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted: “The bulk of the funds for Iraq’s reconstruction will come from Iraqis—from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment—as well as some contributions we’ve already received and hoped to receive from the international community.”

This was yet another unforced error by the neoconservatives, the most blundering foreign policy elite in American history. Apart from the more than 4,000 Americans killed, the more than 30,000 Americans maimed, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives or have been wounded, a conservative estimate of the costs of the war puts it at $1.2 trillion, although Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes estimate that the long-term costs, including medical treatment for veterans, may exceed $2 trillion. David Leonhardt of the New York Times put this into perspective, back in 2007:

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

Political. The domestic political costs of the Iraq war are less obvious than the economic costs, but they may prove to be more damaging in the long run.

During the Vietnam War, the disjuncture between the statements of the Johnson and Nixon administrations about the purposes and progress of the war and the disconcerting facts gave rise to the phrase “the credibility gap.” Revelations about American skulduggery from Cuba to Chile, combined with the unmasking of Nixon’s criminality during the Watergate scandal, created a profound distrust of their own government by a generation of Americans. Paranoia about government permeated popular culture, in which the federal government was identified with rogue intelligence agencies and secret military operations.

Public trust in America’s policymakers, among liberals as well as conservatives, was restored to a degree by the Gulf War and the Kosovo War. Whether one agreed with them or not, the rationales of these wars were clear: reversing Saddam’s attempted conquest of Kuwait, a violation of the post-1945 norm against conquest and annexation, and bringing an end to the violence that accompanied the disintegration of Yugoslavia. For that matter, the Korean and Vietnam wars had been proxy wars in the Cold War. The first turned into a stalemate and the second into a debacle, but in spite of incidental lies and exaggerations, the strategic logic that motivated the U.S. was clear at the time.

But the U.S. invasion of Iraq created a credibility gap that dwarfed that of the Vietnam era. The U.S. attack on Afghanistan made sense; after all, the Taliban regime had supported al-Qaida, which was behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. But why was the Bush administration in 2003 pulling troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq? Administration claims that Saddam had links with al-Qaida were never credible, and the claim that he was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was quickly refuted after his regime fell.

Because the pretexts for the war were so obviously fraudulent, Americans and others around the world were free to speculate about the war’s true purposes. Was it to protect Israel from an enemy? To create a staging area for attacks on Iran? To turn Iraqi oil over to American oil companies? Was George W. Bush attempting to avenge Saddam Hussein’s alleged attempt to assassinate his father?

Whatever its cause or causes, the Iraq war may have convinced a new generation of Americans that their leaders are liars who use pretexts to justify wars whose true purposes are concealed from the American people. This perception is deeply corrosive of American democracy.

Moral. Finally, the Iraq war has been a moral disaster for the United States. The collapse of communism helped to rehabilitate America’s image in the world, and with few exceptions the U.S. was viewed abroad as leading international coalitions in just causes—the liberation of Kuwait, the suppression of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. But the seemingly senseless Iraq war horrified most people in other countries, including America’s closest allies like Britain, whose government cooperated with the U.S. in spite of the opposition of much of the British public.

The photos depicting the sadistic tortures inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib have not only stained America’s reputation as a force for good in the world, but also joined the graphic catalog of modern horrors. It was bad enough that the “ticking bomb” scenario was used to justify the routine practice of torture by the Bush administration in the case of suspected al-Qaida operatives. This was a predictable if deplorable reaction to 9/11. But the victims of torture in Abu Ghraib were mere insurgents who had nothing to do with planning or implementing terrorist attacks on America. In torturing prisoners in Iraq, in kicking down doors and terrorizing civilians, and in gunning down civilians at checkpoints the U.S. military was acting like a premodern colonial power.

The Blackwater Massacre is one of the reasons that Americans are being kicked out of Iraq. On Sept. 16, 2007, mercenaries hired by the Blackwater corporation to provide security for U.S. military and diplomatic personnel gunned down more than a dozen Iraqis, including women and children, in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, as they fired at a car falsely suspected of being a threat. Citing the Blackwater Massacre, the Iraqi government refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Bush administration and the successor Obama administration.

If any good comes of the Iraq war, it will come in the form of an Iraq syndrome, like the Vietnam syndrome that made Americans wary of large-scale military intervention abroad from the fall of Saigon in 1975 until the Gulf War of 1990-91. The mantra then was “No more Vietnams.” That needs to be updated: “No more Iraqs.”

Michael Lind is the author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States and co-founder of the New America Foundation.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>