You'd think Iraq defeated America the way this article about the Iraq War was written. A war examined too closely is indistinguishable from defeat.
The article authors conveniently list the problems that supposedly make the invasion of Iraq a problem akin to Germany's invasion of the USSR in 1941:
Invasion led to diminished US influence in Mideast
Toppling of Saddam emboldened Iran, unnerved Gulf Arabs
Limit on US troop numbers enabled communal strife
Islamic State filled vacuum left by 2011 US pullout
'Strategic error' akin to Hitler’s Russia invasion - Armitage
US price tag for wars in Iraq, Syria $1.79 trillion - study
550,000-584,000 deaths in both countries, including 4,599 US military - study
That looks bad if you don't read farther and if you don't remember the war.
Let's take a look, shall we?
One problem for the entire examination is that the article complicates the question of Iraq by throwing Syria into the mix. And why is Syria in the mix. Because of ISIL, which spanned Syria and Iraq. And why is ISIL in the mix? Because America prematurely left Iraq in 2011, allowing it to rise up in Iraq with the Syrian east beyond Assad's control its extension. So it's kind of like adding in the costs of World War II to the First World War ledger, after America walked away from Europe in 1918 and ignored the growing threats of war there.
Let me go through the cliff notes charges and the article explanations.
What about that diminished American regional influence?
I think the claims about reduced American influence are misleading. One, without the Saddam threat, the need for American military power to oppose a now-defeated threat declined. That's good. Further, I think there is conflating of America's military presence--no longer needed at high levels (because we defeated Saddam and the Iraq insurgencies)--and influence. As the only game in town given our military power, of course we maintained influence.
What about emboldening Iran?
Gulf Arabs were worried about Iran. But it is nonsense to say that Iran "won" the Iraq War in our wake. The defeat of Saddam's Iraq didn't solve all problems in the Middle East. It solved the Saddam problem.
And the Iran problem pre-dated 2003. Indeed, Iraq under Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 in part because Iran's mullah-led government was stoking Shia Arab anger at the Sunni Arab minority government. Gulf Arab allies--ruled by Sunnis--did indeed see Iraq under Saddam as their shield against Iran. And their shield against the Shia majority of Iraq.
And note that while the Iraq War helped Iran penetrate Iraq, before we left we battled the pro-Iran militias and helped the Iraqi government break their hold.
But then the 2014 collapse of Iraqi forces helped Iran regain its armed militia foothold. Fortunately, Iraqi Shias increasingly resent and reject Iran's influence that destabilizes Iraq.
In this article, the basic problem is stated:
Iraqis would never have been liberated from the former regime, but the job is unfinished.
The job is helping democracy gain ground with rule of law to defend their freedom. I recognized that job before the war and continued to call for helping Iraq achieve that. Iran works to undermine rule of law to keep their hand in Iraqi politics through corrupt Iraqi politicians.
And really, raise your hand if you really want to argue that Saddam should have been allowed to continue oppressing and terrorizing the Shia Arabs.
After dealing with Iraq under Saddam, Iran was the next problem and we did not turn to face it. Instead we befriended and funded Iran with the awful 2015 nuclear deal. That emboldened Iran.
And as long as we're bringing up the Nazi invasion of the USSR, America joining the war against Nazi Germany and Allied arms and supplies for the Soviets just emboldened and strengthened the USSR. The Soviet empire was advanced all the way to the Elbe River in the divided Germany by 1945. And it might have been much worse but for American nuclear weapons.
Yet nobody says fighting the Nazis emboldened the Soviets, so we shouldn't have defeated the Nazis.
Still, at least the article doesn't make the most idiotic argument of all--that Iran actually won the Iraq War.
If so, Iran is pretty damned ungrateful to America. But it is not actually true. This argument is shallow strategic thinking in action.
Far from being a gift to Iran, the overthrow of Saddam eliminated the major reason Shia Arabs under Saddam's boot looked to non-Arab Shia Iran for help. Once in charge, the Shias increasingly lost their appetite for Iran and began to see Iran has a threat.
Further, by eliminating Saddam as a major anti-American state, the chance that Iran and Iraq might create a new Nazi-Soviet pact to focus on America was ended. That was a recognized problem of our pre-2001 "dual containment" policy.
Getting rid of Saddam also made it easier for Arab states to reach out to Israel to oppose Iran. Saddam was always ready to stand with the Palestinian terrorists and condemn Arabs who might want to focus on Iran, instead.
And by making Iraq an ally--less than perfect, but far better than an enemy--we could focus on opposing Iran.
And as to the unnerved Gulf Arab allies?
Well, Gulf Arabs were actually very concerned about Iraq, which had invaded Kuwait in 1990.
The article even notes the source of Gulf Arab unnerving was not the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the 2011 total departure from Iraq:
The 2011 withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Iraq left a vacuum that Islamic State (ISIS) militants filled, seizing roughly a third of Iraq and Syria and fanning fears among Gulf Arab states that they could not rely on the United States.
Did the limit on U.S. troops enable communal strife?
Ah, troop strength. Except for two periods just after the conventional war phase of the war and mid-2004 during the dual Sadrist and Sunni jihadi uprisings, there were enough troops. The problem is that Western analysts only considered American troops the measure of troop sufficiency. America had enough troops under its command, including coalition and local forces, to win. And we did. So by definition we had enough troops.
Further, communal strife was strong already as Saddam's minority Sunni Arab government slaughtered and abused the Shias and slaughtered, abused, and even gassed the Sunni Kurds.
Go ahead, you explain to the Shias with centuries of oppression behind them that it was all a mistake.
And in another callback to World War II, do you even know what the chaotic aftermath of World War II in Europe looked like? Did that invalidate the defeat of Nazism, too?
Did the vacuum of American withdrawal allow the rise of ISIL?
Ding! Ding! Ding! You are correct, sir! But this actually undermines the claims that the Iraq War caused the rise of ISIL.
Remember, when American troops withdrew in 2011, Iraq was largely at peace. Both Obama and Biden praised the victory they were leaving behind.
Even Obama saw that we needed to defend what we achieved by initiating Iraq War 2.0 to defeat the revived Sunni Arab jihadis and their old Saddam partners who now controlled a proto-state across Iraqi and Syrian territory.
And again, the destruction of Nazi Germany created a vacuum in central Europe that the USSR filled. Any regrets about that?
Was invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam a 'Strategic error' akin to Hitler’s Russia invasion?
Let's be clear. Germany's invasion of the USSR just led to the Soviets blasting their way into Berlin fewer than four years later, supplied by the Allies. And that was followed by the partition of Germany by the USSR and the Western Allies, whose armies met inside Germany.
So. What? You see anything even remotely like a parallel with America's experience?
Please note that this judgment is based on one man's opinion reported in the article.
Did American credibility suffer from failing to find WMD in Iraq? Perhaps. But every ally believed what our intelligence agencies believed. That it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had chemical weapons.
And every grown up understood that Saddam was poised to quickly restart chemical weapons production once freed of our scrutiny.
Further, we were not required to prove Saddam had WMD. The 1991 ceasefire required Saddam to prove he had no chemical weapons and no material to produce chemical weapons. He refused to do that.
And today, allies from Europe, to the Middle East, to Africa, to Asia see the value of our security assistance.
Wow. What an epic disaster. I still remain in awe of how the original Iraq War went from "fiasco" to a "gamble" that worked so quickly.
But America had many reasons to destroy Saddam's regime, which we fought in 1990-1991, and through the rest of the decade and into the aughts, until destroying Saddam and enabling his trial and execution for his many crimes.
And at the end of the Iraq War and Iraq War 2.0, we had a training-wheel democracy struggling with rule of law that at least doesn't slaughter its own people. And it helps us kill jihadis every day. Iraq today isn't perfect. But it is much better. If you expected perfect, that's on you.
How is this not recognized as victory?
Was the US price tag for wars in Iraq, Syria $1.79 trillion?
One, I see we've lumped in Syria to this. And Iraq War 2.0.
Two, studies like that rely on taking a lot of costs not directly related to the war and then projecting them into the future. In some senses that is valuable to know. But now do social spending and interest on the debt. You'll get huge numbers for those categories with that method, too.
Three, since when is adding the interest on our debt the fault of the war? Isn't defense spending kind of a basic government function? Why do we count defense spending as borrowed money rather than paid for with tax money?
Four, we are wealthy enough to spend money instead of blood.
And five, let's look at American spending since 2003.
Going to 2011 when we totally withdrew from Iraq--but before Syria's civil war or Iraq War 2.0, our entire government spent $25.7 trillion. So the $1.79 trillion cost that counts those other wars with the Iraq War was less than 7% of our total spending.
And if you add in those other two wars and go up to 2022 spending, we find the federal government spent since 2003 $76.08 trillion. War spending to last year was under 2.4% of government spending.
And if you extend the spending to 2050 to compare the higher war spending number, what would that show? Let's charitably assume the next 28 years will only spend a per-year average of the 2003-2022 spending. That means total spending will be $182.59 trillion. So how does that compare to the $2.89 cost if we count veterans spending out to 2050?
Under 1.6% of spending. Optimistically.
Why didn't the article clearly note the parameters and definition of that "war" spending?
Also note that the war has been over for a while. American spending continues to shoot up.
Finally, the casualties.
American losses are beyond dispute. If you count the war as lasting until 2009, when we transitioned to a primarily training mission, you can round to 6 years of combat. Losing 4,599 troops is tragic but is a historically low casualty rate. That actually scared our potential enemies. Just ask the Russians how their invasion is treating their troops to see a real blood bath. In a country with less than half our population. In a little more than a single year.
Did a lot of Iraqis die? Yes. But contrary to the implication, America is not responsible for that high toll. The vast majority were the victims of the terrorists and death squads of our enemies. Had they not decided to fight and kill civilians after the rapid and low-casualty invasion, we would not have the death toll. Had they not decided to hide behind civilians, we would not have the death toll.
And to get the high total you have to add in Iraq War 2.0 that only erupted because we mistakenly withdrew all our remaining troops in 2011 and our jihadi enemies resumed slaughtering civilians in Iraq on a large scale in 2014.
Finally, adding Syria into this figure really bulks up the losses. Those losses were mostly caused by Assad's forces with a strong assist from ISIL--not from America's narrrowly focused efforts in the east supporting the Kurds and local Syrians who fought ISIL. Not really our fault, all things considered. Especially when we did not intervene against Assad to "avoid further militarizing" that civil war, as our genius diplomat put it.
Twenty Years.
So there you go. Today Iraq fights at our side against terrorists rather than threatening, invading, and undermining neighbors and creating regional instability. More Iraqis reject Iran. And Iraq has an imperfect democracy that desperately needs rule of law to make it real and enduring. But the democracy is far better than the 99.9% pro-Saddam elections that once took place under Saddam's brutal minority regime that slaughtered, terrorized, and tortured the majority.
Twenty years after the war started, the media is no better than it was at ten years in assessing the war. Their efforts demonstrate Sartre's observation that a victory examined in detail is indistinguishable from a defeat.
I must say, what really gets me annoyed and ranty are the authors who claim that the Iraq War upset the kite-flying stability of the Middle East.
Don't buy that "stability" BS.
One day there will be big-name authors and historians who will challenge the entrenched and incorrect conventional wisdom that America erred in fighting the Iraq War and that America lost the war.
But so far--even twenty year after we launched the war--that conclusion eludes most people.
We won the Iraq War. Get over it. And stop expanding the original war to include more wars in order to judge it a defeat or waste.
UPDATE: Oh, and let me link an old post that rejected a claim the war destabilized the Middle East. To be fair, the regional unrest was new to the documentary makers. So it must be new, right?
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.
