Since men have inhabited this Earth, war has been apart of its existence. War is intertwined with the existence of man and often defines cultures, time periods, or even whole civilizations. It is a harsh reality of the world we live in. As Cormac McCarthy said, “War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.”
In a tepid and small ceremony, The United States lowered the American flag in Iraq. This was no victory parade, just a recognition that it was over. In a sense, it was an awkward ceremony, because nobody really knows how to feel right now. The United States has effectively ended the war, crossing the border into Kuwait and removing all combat troops. The pullout signifies the beginning of the end to the military conflicts that commenced following the attacks on September 11.
Iraq will be debated for many years. There will be those who say it was a just war, one which toppled an oppressive dictator and freed the Iraqi people. There will be others who will say it was an illegal invasion, perpetrated by an incompetent administration, that decieved its people to in order to invade a soverign nation. You can be certain that those in the Bush Administration will defend their decision, as Dick Cheney has recently, while promoting a new book. And you can also be certain that blame from conservatives, if Iraq falls apart, will be heaped on President Obama, for pulling out too early, rather than President Bush for going in at all. The point here is that Iraq is subjective; not the decisions made during the war, which are always subjective, but the decision to go to war.
One could argue that war constitutes the ultimate subjectivity. There are two sides, both of whom have an opinion about an issue. Each side feels so strongly about their point of view, about their side, that a conflict arises between the parties. War is the culmination of that conflict. The two sides feel so strongly about their subjective point of view, they are willing to fight and kill one another simply for their point of view to be accepted. Objectivity comes after the war, when the winning side writes history, but even that history is usually subjective since it often neglects the views of the side that has just been defeated. It is a really violent version of, "I'm right. You're wrong."
Since World War 2, The United States has concluded four major wars. Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and Iraq. While the Persian Gulf War resulted in minimal U.S. casualties, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq have combined to kill around 100,000 Americans. There are many similarities between these wars, but there is one striking fact all of these conflicts have in common. None of the enemy combatants attacked, or really even posed a threat, to this country. In Korea, we aided our friends in South Korea. In Vietnam we aimed to stop the spread of communism. In The Gulf, we repelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. And in Iraq we toppled Saddam Hussein. But North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, and Iraq again, never attacked us, and there was never any real threat of such an action.
Since World War 2, the decision to go to war has changed dramatically. War is now based on self-interest, rather than necessity. It is no longer a decision that is a last resort; the final option on the table. It is now the first option on the table, with dialogue used as pre-cursor rather an alternative. War has become a discretional choice, to be used as a tool to advance American interests. It many respects it has replaced civil dialogue. Of course, civil dialogue still remains, but military conflict has become an available and willing replacement. But why?
World War 2 was a world-altering conflict. It was a conflict decades in the making that dramatically altered the United States. Unlike wars since, World War 2 possesses objectivity. The view, held now even by Germans, is that Hitler was a maniacal leader, who aimed to take over the world, and needed to be stopped. He was a man, at the helm of one of the most powerful military forces in the world, using his power to murder Jews and other undesirables, while sweeping through Europe en route to what he hoped would be world domination. Germany even has a law today, that prohibits any alteration or outright denying of the Holocaust. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed nearly three thousand Americans, there was no choice but to enter the war. Hitler was not going to stop willfully, the only option was force. The only argument could have been that FDR should have entered sooner.
Following World War 2, America began its great ascent to the top of the world, a title which we still hold today. We became militarized and scared, pouring huge sums of money into our defense budget. We produced the finest military force the world has ever seen, using weaponry today that yesterday seemed futuristic. We authorized The Patriot Act and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. In our view, the only way to prevent such major conflicts of arising once again, was to stop them before they started, hence our decisions to enter Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, although none of those countries posed the same threat Germany did. But our fear following World War 2 was trumped by something else, something that is nearly impossible to achieve. World War 2 gave us an addiction.
When you take a drug, your mind becomes altered. Mentally, your regular body becomes mundane and you can't stand life without the drug. You need that feeling, that euphoria that the drug brings. For America the drug wasn't the war, but rather its conclusion. When you feel great about something, you will often say, "I feel on top of the world." Following World War 2, this country literally was on top of the world. Germany had been defeated and Japan was pummeled with two atomic bombs soon after. That feeling is the drug, and today we still have not felt the same euphoria. Yet, we keep trying to achieve that feeling and the only gateway to the drug is through war.
Was there elation following Korea, Vietnam, or The Gulf? What is the closest we've been to that euphoria? The answer is Osama Bin Laden. And look how we celebrated following his demise! We danced on the streets. There were parties and celebrations. There was a feeling of victory, a tangible win in the War on Terror. That is how our minds have been programmed, and that is the nature of this country today. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, that drug manifested itself once again.
-------------------------------
When there is objectivity in a conflict, there is agreement. There is a set of accepted facts, that both sides agree on, which will lead to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But what happens when that is not possible? What happens when two sides are so diametrically opposed that they simply cannot agree on anything? What happens when one side is sworn to the destruction of another, and simply will not stop until they can accomplish that feat? What happens when that side, that will not stop, does not even have a sovereign country or an army for that matter? What happens, is the War on Terror. The first of its kind. A military war based solely on an ideology, not a specific group of people with a specific homeland.
If you look at the history of Wars in the United States they have all been against a tangible enemy. The British twice in 1776 and 1812, Mexico twice in 1836 and 1846, Each Other in 1865, Spain in 1898, two World Wars against multiple enemies, Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1960, Iraq in 1990, and Terror in 2001. How do you fight a war against something thats intangible? Terror doesnt have a headquarters. Terror doesnt have an army. Terror isnt even imperialistic. Its goal is disruption. Its goal is to consume the world with fear. Those who orchestrate terror know very well they cannot win a conventional war against The United States. It is an impossibility. But what they can do is force the United States to destroy itself. And Terror has accomplished just that.
My perspective regarding the Iraq War is an interesting one. I was 11 years old during the attacks on September 11 and have lived half of my whole life at War. I have grown up from an immature 7th Grader to a future Law School attendee in a time of War, and chances are our country will still be at War when I graduate in 2015. In fact, nearly all of my memories growing up have occurred during a time of War. I remember going on a plane just a few months before 9/11. We breezed through security. I didnt have to take off my shoes and the amount of shampoo I had seemed to make little difference. The cockpit door was open during the flight and there seemed to be little worry regarding safety. Then everything changed. I was thrust into a world of fear, where vigilance was paramount to our safety. I remember flying after 9/11 and seeing the dichotomy between the two periods of time, before and after 9/11. There were no smiles from aiport security. Logan Aiport, the location where two planes used in the attacks took off from, became a war zone. I was introduced to radical Islam, and I latched on to stereotypes of Muslims I saw in the media. I got a taste of a pre 9/11 world but not enough to quench my thirst, and I will surely live in our current environment for years to come, possibly for the duration of my life.
I remember going to a friends house and watching for the first time the Twin Towers being hit and crashing to the ground. The first thing I said out loud, after seeing the footage was, "Wow, this is for real." I dont think I quite understood what the ramifications would be at the time, but watching the planes, these magestic birds flying effortlessly through the air, used as bombs, aroused my senses. I didnt know such hate. I didnt know a problem if it hit me in the face. I knew things would be different.
This wasnt a world like we live in today. I still had dial-up. Nobody had lap-tops. America Online was still dominating the market. Cell phones were still primitive. I didnt have one, and internet on a cell phone was far away. MTV still played music. Monopoly was my favorite game, not FIFA. I grew up in an environment, more so than my parents but exponentially less than kids today, where technology was used but not obsessed over. I didnt spend hours on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube because they didnt exist. We were sheltered compared to today, where kids are bombarded and exposed to everything at young ages. On September 11 I was blindsided.
However, everyone seemed to be in a consensus. Al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden was responsible. I had no reason to think otherwise. I didnt watch the news. I wasnt up to date on current events and foreign affairs. All I knew is Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. But even that information was gathered from my parents, and not the news. The course of action, and I had turned 12 by this time, was to go after this group, Al-Qaeda, who were supposedly hiding in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We would be at war with Al-Qaeda. Simple enough. Yet, in October of 2002, Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, justifying the use of military force in Iraq. And now as a 13 year old, I was bewildered, about why we were all of a sudden at war with Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
This was a war we had never fought before. Al-Qaeda was en enemy that was unidentifiable. They were a bunch of rag tag soldiers living in caves. Besides the faces of Osama bin Laden and a few other members of the top echelon of leadership, there was nothing to target. When Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor, 70 years ago, we could put a face to the atrocities. They were an extension of Germany. An objective enemy. They had a flag, an army, cities, and a country. But that was simply not the case with Al-Qaeda. Iraq however had a face. Its face was Saddam Hussein. And inexplicably, at the subjective behest of George W. Bush, the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
---------------------------------------
I was sitting on my couch with my parents on March 20, 2003, the day war began. The War in Afghanistan provided no theater because there was no infrastructure to hit, but in Iraq there were explosions and fireballs, as cruise missiles rained down all over the country. The only thing missing was Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, which should have been playing in the background.
So why did we go to war? According to George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair the reason for the invasion was, "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Husseins alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."Just days before the invasion of Iraq on March 17, 2003, Bush would say, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Really? More deadly than the actual atomic stockpile the United States possessed? In his address to the nation on March 19, 2003, Bush would add that the invasion was "to defend the world from grave danger." Press secretary Ari Fleischer would say it was a fact there were WMDs in Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld even had the chutzpah to say he knew where they were. But in his address to the nation March 19, 2003, Bush would go even farther, spouting lies and half-truths; nothing short of propaganda. Bush said, "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly...The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now...so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters, and police and doctors on the streets of our cities." These statements are nothing short of outrageous for any person who values objective reasoning, or any person who values being rational. But more than that the statements are frightening because they came from The President as reasoning to justify his war. If there were any reluctance about entering Iraq it would have never happened, and to implicitly say that not invading Iraq would directly result in an attack on our cities is the definition of warmongering.
Yet if there is someone who most symbolized the Bush administration it is Colin Powell. On February 5, 2003 while presenting to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said, "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11 world." It is clear here what Powell is doing. He is using our fear following 9/11 to conjure up an excuse for entering Iraq, coupled with the usual lies about weapons of mass destruction. But most shocking is what Colin Powell said about Iraq before 9/11 on February 24, 2001. Powell said, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." You would hope that during internal discussions about entering Iraq that Powell brought this tidbit up. Guess not.
But there was another reason besides WMDs and imminent attacks on our country to invade Iraq: Al-Qaeda.The administration claimed that there not only was a link, but that the two were even connected. Powell said that a "sinister nexus" existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. He also said, "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al-Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." President Bush would try for many months leading up to the war to link the two saying, "He (Hussein) is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his Al-Qaeda connections..." They would continue looking for connections and would, unsurprisingly come up empty.
Yet, it is well know there were no WMDs in Iraq, a fact everyone knew, except for the Bush Administration. Bush would say at the end of 2008, mired in some of the worst approval ratings ever, and mounting criticism over his handling of just about every major issue he encountered, that, "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." For many that could be considered an excuse, a way to deflect attention and blame onto other parties, most notably not George W. Bush. I find this statement infuriating because it is an admittance he sent young men and women to war on a hunch. How can you go to war on shoddy intelligence? This wasn't a singular attack on a facility where there was an intelligence failure. This was an invasion of another country! How can you possibly mistake the reason you are going to war? It is comparable to the doomsday prophet Harold Camping. A man, who had proof the world was ending, including sources many find unreliable. I heard his claims and briefly looked into them. Yet, you didn't see me selling all my material possessions to await the Rapture.
There are only one of two possibilities. Rampant incompetence or ulterior motives. You can decide for yourself.
---------------------------------------------------
War is not some noble event, as seen on screen or on television. War is brutal and horrific. War is bloodshed. Men, women, and children. No one is spared. War pits two groups of people against each other, with the goal of killing one another. Think about the psychological toll that puts on a 20 year old? Think about how that young man's mind is while he is in Iraq, seeing his friends mangled by IED's. Do you think he cares about the Iraqi people? They become the enemy. They became "Hajis", a slang term soldiers used for the Iraqi people.
War turns boys into men and men into monsters. War is Abu Ghraib. A prison where detainees were urinated on, sodomized, raped, and murdered; the pictures now seen worldwide. War is Haditha, where 24 Iraqi civilians were slaughtered. War is the Mahmudiyah Killings, where a 14 year old girl was repeatedly raped by American soldiers. The girl, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was murdered, along with her 6 year old younger sister, mother and father. War is Mukaradeeb, where 42 civilians were murdered at a wedding party. War is Guantanamo Bay where many of the foundations of country, such as due process, became inconsequential. War is torture, or enhanced interrogation techniques, where Waterboarding, or simluated drowing took place. Another group that used such a technique was the Kmer Rouge. War is Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker, two American soldiers, whose combined age was 48, who were captured, tortured, and murdered by Iraqi insurgents; their bodies paraded through the streets. War is 4,500 American military service members killed and 32,000 American casualties. War is the unconscionable toll this has put on American families and the group of young men and women who will return from Iraq physically or emotionally scarred, or both. War is PTSD, a disorder that will affect 1/5 returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. War is the stain this will leave on our country, most likely for the duration of my life.
War is The Wounded Platoon, an eye opening PBS Frontline investigation about the 3rd platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Batallion, 506 Infantry. The investigation uncovers the devastation the war has had on a small group of soldiers. The soldiers tell of gross misconduct by army doctors, who allegedly prescribed sleeping pills, anti-depressants, and anti-anxiety medication while soldiers were on the battlefield. It also tells of the mental toll the war took on the soldiers, and how the military has done little or nothing to help; sometimes discharging soldiers not allowing them to receive medical care. The investigation also reports about alleged killing of Iraqi civilians, something that soldiers who were interviewed implicitly admit to. And it tells of murder by former soldiers, not on the battlefield, but on American soil. Jose Barco, a decorated veteran, who experienced symptoms of PTSD, is facing decades in prison for attempted murder. Kevin Shields was an Iraq veteran, but upon return to America he was murdered; by three other returning soldiers.
If we weren't at war with the Iraqi people, what happened following the fall of Saddam Hussein? If our war was against him and his regime, why did we continuing occupying Iraq for nearly a decade? Did we understand, to any degree, the cultural sensitivities of this part of the world? The vast majority of Iraqis despise the United States. Following our withdrawal the Iraqi people celebrated, marking a new holiday called "Iraq Day". Our goal was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. Sounds easy enough. Not so much in reality. To Americans war is over once our military has pulled out. Once we're finished it no longer becomes our problem. While Americans have suffered through this conflict, the extent does not compare to the plight of the Iraqi people. While the exact number is hard to verify, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict is believed to exceed well over 100,000. The total Iraqi deaths is believed to be over 150,000. The number of wounded is even harder to verify, and with limited medical facilities in the country severe injuries are nearly impossible to treat. Some other numbers include 5 million, the reported number of Iraqi orphans. Or 4.7 million, which is the estimated number of Iraqis who have been displaced. Or 40% of Iraq's middle class which has fled the country. Or 50,000, the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria who have been forced into prostitution. Or the humanitarian crisis that is currently enveloping the country. Over time, the media will turn its attention elsewhere and forget Iraq. Suicide bombings will take up a few seconds of a broadcast, during a quick update. Since the pullout of American forces, there have already been multiple bombings, killing dozens of Iraqis. The number will only continue to rise. Just numbers to us.
--------------------------------
As events unfold in the Arab world, I begin to think of what could have been Iraq. I think about whether this all could have been avoided, and whether Saddam Hussein would have met the same fate of other recently deposed dictators. Wouldn't the Arab Spring have reached Iraq? What country would have been a better candidate to see upheaval than Iraq? Iraq and its leadership stood for everything that the Arab Spring sought to uproot. An oil-rich country led by a maniacal dictator who had been in power for decades. Sound familiar? I'll continue. A delusional leader who lived a lavish lifestyle, purporting to be a man of the people, while his people lived in poverty, deprived of basic human rights while living in fear of torture and/or imprisonment for the smallest amount of dissent. I think I've heard that story before.
The results we currently see in Libya could very well have transpired in Iraq. We forced democracy on Iraq instead of waiting for it to come to its people. And right as we are pulling out of Iraq, the region is seeing democracy make its way in. Yet, this war in Iraq has systematically destroyed our standing in the world. All of the sympathy we had aroused after 9/11 was shattered following the invasion. We were seen as a victim following the attacks on 9/11, yet the moment we invaded Iraq we became the oil grabbing, imperialistic monster, as much of the Arab world sees us today. By invading Iraq we essentially created an enemy. The insurgency in Iraq was American made. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was American made. And they will remain in the country, hostile to any U.S. backed government, long after our troops pull out.
As long as Iraq is debated you will hear that President Obama pulled out too early. Many will say we should have stayed longer to stabilize Iraq, to ensure that its democracy becomes fully functioning. So did he pull out too early? Of course he did. Because, if your wish was to install a fully functioning democracy in Iraq, then you would need another 20 years, maybe more. To presume that Iraq could rid itself of sectarian violence, and establish a western democracy within the next 10 years is a fallacy. These types of seismic shifts don't happen overnight. They take decades and generations to establish, and sometimes entire lifetimes, if not longer. We do not have the resources at our present time to stay in Iraq for 2 more decades. If Iraq wants to establish democracy, Iraq will establish democracy, not The United States of America.
I don't know how George W. Bush feels about his decision to invade Iraq. I don't know whether he understands the magnitude his decision has had on an innumerable amount of lives, and will continue to have. War is not a simple board game, like Risk, where you can send cannons and horses into a country and simply by rolling the dice, can you conquer land. War involves blood. A lot of blood. So when I look back on this terrible war, many emotions permeate my body. I see it as a conflict that will define my generation. I see it it as a conflict that has destroyed so many lives, yet the architects will never be held responsible. Right now the anger is palpable. But over time it will subside. It has to. But as the anger slowly subsides, I'll be left with sadness. Immense amounts of sadness.
Some good follow up reads:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/Todd-Purdum-on-National-Security
