The Meaning of the End of the Iraq War

President Obama has announced that the Iraq war is over in multiple speeches, but what does that really mean?  First, a few things that this occasion is NOT.

This is not an Obama accomplishment.  Candidate Obama said repeatedly in 2008 "I will immediately begin to remove our troops...we can remove all of them in 16 months."  So if he had kept this campaign promise, the war would have ended in May 2010, not December 2011.  More important than the pace of withdrawal, however, is the seldom noted fact that the reason troops are withdrawing is because the sovereign government of Iraq has demanded that we withdraw.  The agreement between our nations that dictates withdrawal of our combat troops by the end of this year was signed by President Bush.  Obama has worked hard to try to extend U.S. troop presence beyond the Bush agreement.  The only reason this effort failed is that the Iraqi government refused to indemnify U.S. troops against prosecution for war crimes, such as unauthorized murder of non-combatants.
 
This is not an end to hostilities.  The withdrawal of U.S. "combat troops" is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, since a substantial U.S. presence will remain in Iraq into 2012 and beyond.  Our embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, a $750 million complex the size of Vatican City.  The staff of this embassy has at least 5,000 mercenaries to guard them.  Do you think the people who have been battling our "combat troops" will see any distinction between them and our "security personnel"?  Those who feel upset that we invaded and occupied their country for 9 years will not rest until the U.S. presence in Iraq is completely obliterated.  Do you remember the crisis that ensued when militants in Iran took our embassy personnel hostage?  While that exact scenario can't happen while the State Department has such a large ground and air force, don't you think we're asking for trouble by staying there?  The need to protect our personnel means things like middle-of-the-night house raids will continue.  Do you think the teenager who witnesses his brother or father being taken away in such a raid will care whether the armed thugs conducting the raid report to the State Department rather than the Defense Department when he decides whether or not to become a terrorist?  If we really withdrew from the country, such a scenario could not happen.

The saddest part of this war ending is that mainstream news outlets feel compelled to "balance" their coverage of the war by describing both the good and the bad things that came from it.  This bogus "objectivity bias" prevents journalists from making overt value judgements, even though war is unequivocally bad by any rational moral standard.  The fact is that bias and judgement are unavoidable anytime a person opens his or her mouth or takes pen to paper.  Better to state your biases up front, rather than pretend you don't have any.  The Iraq war in particular was a miserable failure on any axis you'd care to measure: strategic, economic, political, moral and security.  If we had not attacked, would Sadaam have killed more of his own citizens than we did?  Iraq Body Count reports over 100,000 civilians were killed as a result of the U.S. invasion.  If we had pursued non-violent means for overthrowing Hussein, could we have brought about the Arab Spring years earlier?

The notion that doing evil things (like invading and occupying countries that have not attacked anyone) is OK when the United States does them is called "American Exceptionalism".  It is a dangerous attitude which often results in the citizens of this great country tolerating actions from our government that history will judge as symbols of American arrogance, recklessness, and stupidity.  That's not the kind of exceptionalism I'd like our nation to have.  At the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi leaders were tried for their crimes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, said "Our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war".  I don't see why this principle doesn't still apply.  Iraq did not attack us (or threaten to attack us), they had nothing to do with 9/11, and they didn't harbor terrorists.  This means the invasion was an unnecessary, aggressive war. 

An unnecessary war, with its colossal cost in blood, treasure, and reputation, is not a cause for celebration, even when it ends.  The Iraq war is a terrible stain upon the American conscience, a blunder in all respects, and an act of embarrassing hubris from our leaders.  The only proper observance of the end of this chapter in U.S. imperialism is to apologize, withdraw completely from the sovereign country of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East), take care of the veterans who lost their limbs and minds over there, and begin the grieving process.