Blindness
America won the war in Iraq, but some victories have costs just as high as those of defeats. It’s true that the Cassandras prophesying conflict — usually with an anti-American bent — were wrong. The Iraqi army collapsed in mere weeks; widespread civil war was avoided in spite of clashes between certain factions; circumstances for the Kurds and Shiites have improved; the country is seeing a rapidly developing economy; some semblance of democracy has been established, with the tentative approval of the populace; and the American army threw itself into the heart of a very strategic region, securing the West’s oil supply and preserving a real threat to hostile regimes that stain the complex and incandescent Orient.
But can you truly say that you’ve won a war when it cost 4,000 coalition soldiers’ lives, and more importantly, at least 100,000 lives of Iraqi civilians — those whom you came to liberate? When you spent $3 trillion, which could easily have been put to a better use elsewhere? When the efforts in Iraq impaired the intervention in Afghanistan and actually interfered with the struggle against terrorism? When the lie that started the war — weapons of mass destruction — served to discredit the word of the Western world in Eastern countries? When the neo-conservative dream of opening the region to democracy and an Israeli-Palestinian compromise shattered under the cultural and political realities of the Middle East? In their delusion, the “neo-cons” senselessly illustrated the old adage: You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it. Of course, one strong argument remains to justify this tragedy: Did we want to leave Saddam in place? Of course not. But perhaps there were other ways to neutralize him.
But can you truly say that you’ve won a war when it cost 4,000 coalition soldiers’ lives, and more importantly, at least 100,000 lives of Iraqi civilians — those whom you came to liberate? When you spent $3 trillion, which could easily have been put to a better use elsewhere? When the efforts in Iraq impaired the intervention in Afghanistan and actually interfered with the struggle against terrorism? When the lie that started the war — weapons of mass destruction — served to discredit the word of the Western world in Eastern countries? When the neo-conservative dream of opening the region to democracy and an Israeli-Palestinian compromise shattered under the cultural and political realities of the Middle East? In their delusion, the “neo-cons” senselessly illustrated the old adage: You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it. Of course, one strong argument remains to justify this tragedy: Did we want to leave Saddam in place? Of course not. But perhaps there were other ways to neutralize him.