Losing a Won War

The official end of the Iraq War is an admission of defeat. It is tough to remember that everyone loses in war — even the victors. The U.S. has been constantly fighting wars since its founding, but only on a few occasions has a clean victory been claimed: Just look at the Civil War and the annihilation of the Axis powers in Europe and Asia during World War II.

Although Korea could have also occupied a privileged place in the U.S.’s mind, the merit of having led the UN coalition was diluted by ultimate division of the peninsula. The same is true of World War I, where the armistice robbed the Americans of full glory. Even earlier, during the era of Manifest Destiny, the invasion and capture of a considerable part of Mexican territory and what was later innocently called the Spanish-American War in Cuba became sources of shame and resentment, giving rise to anti-imperialist sentiment that was only reinforced by invasions and occupations in the rest of Central America and the Caribbean.

But of all the conflicts, Vietnam was the ultimate defeat, coming at the price of more than 50,000 American deaths — a figure that is multiplied exponentially when civilian casualties are factored in. The current retreat from Iraq has come at the cost of more than 4,000 deaths. Nevertheless, the number of civilian deaths exceeds 100,000. And it is impossible to count the number of soldiers who have died as a result of chronic diseases, infections or psychological trauma.

The hypocrites are not bothered by how bodies of practically anonymous soldiers are in coffins barely covered by a flag, which is later given to families through unacknowledged ceremonies.

This is the price the citizens of the United States are prepared to pay for maintaining a professional military comprised entirely of volunteers, who are thanked for their services as if they were municipal employees close to retirement. From this, we can understand why no one protests the deficit that threatens to jeopardize the future of two generations, who are prepared to pay it off.

What remains in Iraq, which has been left under the control of various factions, is a situation that consists of daily, disastrous attacks. “I told you so” will be said, both smugly and hypocritically. In reality, many individuals shamefully abstained from determining the direction of the White House’s reaction to the 9/11 attacks as much as they did from the reelection of George W. Bush.

The country was paralyzed by a fear of seeming unpatriotic when critically analyzing the “civilizing mission” that was initiated by the military machinery of the United States.

Then, still under a Pearl Harbor-like spell, Americans were deceived by the fictitious claims about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. But Bush was continually dazzled by the advice of Condoleezza Rice, who sold him on the notion of a unique historical opportunity — a second coming of the Cold War triumph — to establish solid control in such an important zone as the Middle east. In all honesty, the strategy was simply one of commodifying the oil wells.

Unfortunately, the same people who abstained then will now give a satisfied smile at having noticed this. According to this malicious logic, the best way to maintain stability in some parts of the world is to leave the autocrats in control. The idealism of Woodrow Wilson in imposing the self-determination gospel of the United States must be left aside. Paradoxically, Bush made a mistake: He should have acted like his father, who stopped the race to Baghdad when the war in Kuwait was already won.

It is tragic that it is now accepted that places like Iraq, as nonexistent nation-states, cannot be left alone. After a little bit of imposed democracy, it will all return to violence, tribal antagonism, the rejection of what we call Western values and the search for opportunities by neighbors (Iran) who seem motivated by the popular saying: Troubled waters are a fisherman’s gain.

But when weighing the various alternatives and the costs, these unhappy countries must be left alone the next time. That logic would extend to Mubarak’s Eypt and Gadhafi’s Libya.