Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Iraq Intervention Ends with Scarcely a Whimper

The United States marked the formal end of its unpopular eight-and-a-half year war in Iraq with little fanfare.

Print Friendly

 Inter Press Service

When the United States formally ended its eight-and-a-half year military adventure in Iraq with a flag-lowering ceremony presided over by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta Baghdad, hardly anyone here seemed to notice, let alone mark the occasion in a special manner.

Similarly, earlier this week, when U.S. President Barack Obama hosted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at the White House to discuss – apparently rather inconclusively – the future strategic relationship between the two countries, hardly anyone paid attention.

The surprising lack of interest could be explained by the distractions of the holiday season, the Republican presidential race or the health of the global and U.S. economies.

It could also be due to the fact that people are all too aware that, even as the last 4,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq head for home over the next week to ten days, Washington still has more than 90,000 troops engaged in Afghanistan.

That situation, in the public mind, is not all that different than Iraq, particularly because former President George W. Bush depicted them both as part of the "global war on terror", or, as some of his more extreme neo-conservative cheerleaders described it in their typically apocalyptic hyperbole, "World War IV."

Or perhaps people here would just as soon forget as a bad dream what the former head of the National Security Agency, the late Lt. Gen. William Odom, called back in 2005 – just two and a half years after the U.S. invasion – "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history".

The reversal of public opinion

Within days of the March 20, 2003 launch of Washington's "shock and awe" military campaign, some 70 percent of the public told pollsters they supported the war and thought it was "the right thing to do" against about 25 percent who said the U.S. should have stayed out.

Eight and a half years later, those numbers are virtually reversed: in a poll conducted last month by CNN, 68 percent of respondents said they oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, while only 29 percent said they favour it.

In a CBS New poll also conducted last month, 67 percent of respondents assessed the Iraq war as "not worth the loss of American lives and other costs" incurred. Only 24 percent, including a plurality of Republicans, disagreed – eloquent testimony indeed to the deep disillusionment most citizens feel about a war whose costs its initiators utterly failed to anticipate, let alone prepare for.

On the U.S. side of the ledger, the costs have been staggering: nearly 4,500 soldiers killed, with tens of thousands more wounded, in many ways including severe brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSDs) that haunt and disable their victims for the rest of their lives.

The war's official price tag of approximately one trillion dollars over the eight years ignores the far greater indirect costs.

Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, has estimated total costs of the Iraq war on the U.S. economy, including the costs of health care for veterans, at more than three trillion dollars, a significant amount given the difficult economic straits in which this country finds itself.

In addition, the U.S. suffered an immeasurable loss in international credibility. The stated justifications for going to war – Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction, a rapidly developing nuclear weapons programme – proved utterly unfounded, while the mightiest, highest-tech war machine in history failed to suppress a variety of rag-tag insurgencies.

Greater losses for Iraqis

Of course, material U.S. losses pale when compared to those of the Iraqis – estimated at well over 100,000 dead, and countless others, including hundreds of thousands of children, injured or traumatised by their experiences.

Nor can the social costs also be ignored: the United Nations has estimated the number of people who have fled their homes since the invasion at nearly five million, roughly equally divided between internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Iraq and refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries, including much of Iraq's previously thriving Christian community, or beyond.

Moreover, the still-smouldering embers of sectarian violence between the Shi'a-led government forces and militias and their Sunni rivals, as well as unresolved tensions between the Kurdish population in the north and Arabs over territorial claims in and around Kirkuk have not just reconfigured the country's demography and politics. They also remain largely unresolved and therefore potential sources of major future conflict, even civil war.

The "surge" of an additional 33,000 U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007 and 2008 and the adoption of a counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy helped pull the Sunni-Shi'a conflict back from the brink of all-out civil war.

But it also fell far short of its political goal of bringing about the "national reconciliation" between all of the contending parties that the Surge's neo-conservative and COIN champions had defined as its strategic goal.

An uncertain future

What the remarkably few stories that have reviewed the situation in Iraq during this farewell period appear to agree on is that sectarian tensions are once again on the rise, especially in the wake of sweeping roundups of Sunni leaders associated with the U.S.-backed "awakening" movement that was so critical to the surge's success.

The apparent fragility of the peace on both the Shi'a-Sunni and Kurdish-Arab fronts and the possibility of renewed civil war – or enhanced Iranian influence – has been the focus of attack by critics of Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. combat forces by the end of this month.

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, as well as neo-conservatives, notably Fred Kagan, and other hawks, such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, have complained bitterly over the past week.

They say that Obama failed to follow his commanders' advice to exert strong pressure on al-Maliki to agree to retain at least 14,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to continue acting as a buffer between Kurds and Arabs in the north, maintain pressure on the government for "national reconciliation", curb Iranian influence and ensure that threats from a possibly resurgent Al Qaeda in Iraq would be dealt with swiftly.

That plan was rejected when the Iraqis refused to grant any remaining troops legal immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Scepticism about Iraq's future stability is remarkably high, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released this week. A majority of respondents said they thought "all-out civil war" was either "very" (21 percent) or "somewhat likely" (39 percent) in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. A similar majority rated the chances of Iraq achieving a "stable democracy" as either "somewhat" (32 percent) or "very unlikely" (28 percent).

Nonetheless, the same pollsters last month found that a whopping 71 percent of respondents believed that Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops now was the right decision; only 24 percent disagreed.

It seems that the U.S. public has had enough of the war in Iraq.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, has been selected by President Trump to replace National Security Adviser McMaster, marking a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.

The Institute for the Study of War is a D.C.-based counterinsurgency think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention in the Greater Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

New NSA John Bolton represents an existential threat to the Iran nuclear deal and any hopes for peace in the region.

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.