Defeat in Iraq?
One hears that “the United States is on the point of being defeated in war for the second time in history.” People are referring to Iraq. I suppose that a defeat is a failure of a contestant to achieve their objectives in conflict, with an important loss of the elements deployed to achieve what was proposed.
Those who speak of the “second” American defeat are referring to the Vietnam War as the first. There the purpose was to preserve the existence and democratic system in South Vietnam. Something that was not achieved, in spite of the fact that more than 50 thousand lives were lost. It was, in whatever way one sees it, a defeat. It is clear that this is not due to the wisdom of the communist generals nor to the “heroic popular resistance," but rather to a strategic error in the conception of the conflict on the part of the United States command, then they had waged a war of wear and tear where one should have waged one of destruction.
I am speaking purely of the military aspect, without entering into consideration of the ethics that, being more important, is not the topic of this article.
The United States was seeking to de-throne the dictator in Iraq. They achieved it, succeeding by means of the complete in-use of its armed forces and the occupation of the whole country. The loss of lives and equipment in the process were within what is manageable. Seen like this, it is a victory.
Now, if there was a political project beyond the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, whatever it may have been, it was not achieved. The idea sometimes sold is that the real purpose behind the intervention in Iraq was to establish a democratic government in that country. Its influence would then contribute to bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East. This republic seemed to be the most appropriate in the region for an attempt of this sort: it was governed by an unpopular tyrant, it was the most secular of the Arab states and the population is relatively liberal. Furthermore it is a big, rich country, which borders many states that, at some point, would have to absorb its beneficial influence.
But things didn’t turn out like this. It is highly possible that when the last allied soldier leaves Mesopotamia, it will enter into a spiral of violence and chaos that will make the world miss the times of Hussein. Is this then a defeat for the United States? They achieved the military objective, but not the political one. Under a valid point of view, both are identical (“war is politics continued through other means”). At the most one could say that the departure, with “scarcely” three thousand dead, is a timely retreat (which could be accounted for as a tie). In any case, the biggest loser will be the Iraqi people, who put down 40,000 lives in the span of very few years to again be, as they will see it, under the protection of tyranny, very probably of a theocratic court, similar to that of its neighbor Iran….in this case they already know who will become their biggest ally.
Those who speak of the “second” American defeat are referring to the Vietnam War as the first. There the purpose was to preserve the existence and democratic system in South Vietnam. Something that was not achieved, in spite of the fact that more than 50 thousand lives were lost. It was, in whatever way one sees it, a defeat. It is clear that this is not due to the wisdom of the communist generals nor to the “heroic popular resistance," but rather to a strategic error in the conception of the conflict on the part of the United States command, then they had waged a war of wear and tear where one should have waged one of destruction.
I am speaking purely of the military aspect, without entering into consideration of the ethics that, being more important, is not the topic of this article.
The United States was seeking to de-throne the dictator in Iraq. They achieved it, succeeding by means of the complete in-use of its armed forces and the occupation of the whole country. The loss of lives and equipment in the process were within what is manageable. Seen like this, it is a victory.
Now, if there was a political project beyond the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, whatever it may have been, it was not achieved. The idea sometimes sold is that the real purpose behind the intervention in Iraq was to establish a democratic government in that country. Its influence would then contribute to bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East. This republic seemed to be the most appropriate in the region for an attempt of this sort: it was governed by an unpopular tyrant, it was the most secular of the Arab states and the population is relatively liberal. Furthermore it is a big, rich country, which borders many states that, at some point, would have to absorb its beneficial influence.
But things didn’t turn out like this. It is highly possible that when the last allied soldier leaves Mesopotamia, it will enter into a spiral of violence and chaos that will make the world miss the times of Hussein. Is this then a defeat for the United States? They achieved the military objective, but not the political one. Under a valid point of view, both are identical (“war is politics continued through other means”). At the most one could say that the departure, with “scarcely” three thousand dead, is a timely retreat (which could be accounted for as a tie). In any case, the biggest loser will be the Iraqi people, who put down 40,000 lives in the span of very few years to again be, as they will see it, under the protection of tyranny, very probably of a theocratic court, similar to that of its neighbor Iran….in this case they already know who will become their biggest ally.
Previous article![]( "Hillary Clinton to Bring Four Years of War")
