The United States has ended a war that never should have begun. It has done so under conditions by which it can neither proclaim victory nor admit defeat, because the alleged reasons for invading Iraq were false; the strategy on the ground, wrong; and the objectives, imprecise and changing. Because the weapons of mass destruction that served as an excuse for this war proved to be a deliberate manipulation, its promoters tried to justify it as an effort to bring democracy to Iraq. That is to say, they tried to hide means that were abject, from the beginning, behind a noble cause.
The toll of dead and injured left behind by this war will always be an indictment of those who initiated it, disregarding law and international institutions on behalf of values they betrayed as they invoked them. More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the conflict, as well as 4,700 coalition soldiers, the majority of whom were Americans. The U.S., on the other hand, spent nearly $800 million in the venture, and Iraq is now a ruined nation with little hope for stability.
Contemplated in perspective, the frivolity of the decisions that led to this war, staged in the Azores summit between Bush, Blair, Aznar and Durão Barroso, is a testament to the ease with which democratically elected leaders can initiate a sterile tragedy and place the world on the brink of catastrophe, when a lethal mix of messianic megalomania and ideological dreams inspire their actions.
President Obama has ignored the voices that beg him to prolong the presence of combat troops in Iraq beyond the next 31 days, the limit promised for withdrawal during his electoral campaign and which will be reached ahead of schedule. To keep them in place longer would not guarantee that Iraqi forces would be in condition to ensure security for the country; it would serve only to postpone the moment when Iraqis confront a problem that no one will resolve for them. The U.S. is not withdrawing the 50,000 soldiers who are in charge of training new armed forces.
After the March elections, Iraqi political forces continue to fail to reach agreement in forming a government. This has been one of the alleged reasons given by supporters for delaying U.S. withdrawal. But it also could have an opposite effect: While troops were in Iraq, elected leaders failed to take seriously the urgency of their responsibilities. Their country was the victim of a grave injustice, one that not even the presence of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein could justify. But it is now up to the Iraqis to prevent this injustice from delivering victory to those who, after seven years of fighting Americans, will not hesitate to turn arms against fellow citizens in order to subjugate them again.
Estados Unidos termina una guerra que no ha podido ganar y deja atrás un paÃs arruinado.
Estados Unidos ha puesto fin a una guerra que no debió comenzar nunca. Y lo ha hecho en unas condiciones en las que no puede ni proclamar la victoria ni tampoco reconocer la derrota, porque las causas alegadas para invadir Irak fueron falsas, la estrategia sobre el terreno, equivocada, y los objetivos perseguidos, imprecisos y cambiantes. Puesto que las armas de destrucción masiva que sirvieron de excusa a esta guerra resultaron ser una deliberada manipulación, sus promotores pasaron a justificarla como un intento de llevar la democracia a Irak. Es decir, trataron de ocultar detrás de una causa noble unos medios que desde el comienzo fueron abyectos.
El balance de muertos y heridos que deja esta guerra será siempre un acta de acusación contra quienes la desencadenaron, despreciando la legalidad y las instituciones internacionales en nombre de valores que traicionaban en el mismo momento de invocarlos. Más de 100.000 civiles iraquÃes han perdido la vida en el conflicto, además de 4.700 soldados de la coalición, la mayorÃa de ellos estadounidenses. Estados Unidos, por otra parte, ha gastado cerca de 800.000 millones de dólares en la aventura, e Irak es hoy un paÃs arruinado y con pocas esperanzas de estabilidad.
El presidente Obama ha desoÃdo las voces que le reclamaban prolongar la presencia de las tropas de combate en Irak más allá del próximo dÃa 31, lÃmite comprometido para la retirada durante su campaña electoral y que cumple antes de plazo. Mantenerlas por más tiempo no hubiera garantizado que las fuerzas iraquÃes estuvieran en condiciones de asumir entonces la seguridad del paÃs; tan solo se habrÃa aplazado el momento de que los iraquÃes se enfrenten a un problema que nadie podrá resolver por ellos. EE UU no retira los 50.000 soldados encargados de adiestrar a las nuevas fuerzas armadas.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.