Why Remember Iraq?
Most Americans would prefer to forget that we are approaching the first anniversary of the expulsion of U.S. military forces from Iraq. The Republican Party, which rallied behind George W. Bush to invade the country and occupy it, has suffered from a short memory relating to that misbegotten war even as it agitates for new and similar military interventions. Much of the silence on the subject is certainly due to the fact that most Democrats and nearly all the media were also on board, though perhaps for reasons that did not completely coincide with the Bush neocons’ imperial vision. And after the war began and the occupation took on its misbegotten form under Jerry Bremer, Dan Senor, and a host of neocon acolytes brought on board to reshape the country, the saga ran on and on. As Iraq broke down into its constituent parts due to Bremer’s inept proconsulship, a development that might normally lead to a rethink of the entire project, Pentagon-based neoconservatives instead regrouped, doubled down and contrived the 2007 “surge” to fix things. That the surge was a poorly conceived and executed military dead end and a complete failure to do anything but deepen the divisions within Iraq seemed irrelevant, political partisanship inevitably rushing in to interpret it as a success to provide cover for the foolish politicians, generals and bureaucrats in Washington who had conceived it. As recently as the Republican presidential debates earlier this year the “surge” in Iraq was cited by several candidates as a litmus test for those who believe in the “right kind” of foreign policy. Those who did not believe in the myth of the surge as a subset of American Exceptionalism were outside the pale, most notably Representative Ron Paul.
Iraq, correctly labeled the “worst mistake in American history,” has to be remembered because of what it should have taught about Washington’s false perception of the U.S. vis-a-vis the rest of the world. One of America’s poorest secretaries of state of all time, Madeleine Albright, once said that the U.S. is the only “necessary nation” because it “sees far.” She could have added that it sees far though it frequently doesn’t understand what it is seeing, but that would have required some introspection on her part. Albright’s ignorance and hubris have unfortunately been embraced and even expanded upon by her equally clueless successors and the presidencies that they represented. Iraq should be an antidote to such thinking, a prime lesson in what is wrong with the United States when its blunders its way overseas as the self-proclaimed arbiter of the destinies of billions of people.
Everyone but the “realist” and largely traditional conservative and libertarian minority that opposed the Iraq venture from day one has turned out to be dead wrong about the war and many continued to be wrong even when the U.S. military was eventually forced to leave the country by the Baghdad government. The Iraq war was born from a series of lies.
The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 based on two alleged threats as defined by the Bush administration and Congress. First, it was claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and also delivery systems that would enable it to strike directly against the United States. Second, it was frequently argued that Iraq had somehow been involved in 9/11 through its intelligence services. Both contentions were completely false, were known by many in the White House to be fraudulent, and, in some cases, were bolstered by evidence that was itself fabricated or known to be incorrect. Many in the Pentagon and CIA knew that the case being made for war was essentially bogus and was being contrived to satisfy United Nations requirements for armed intervention. Though there were a couple of principled resignations from the State Department, almost everyone in the bureaucracy went along with the fraud.
Digging deeper there were other uncited reasons for going to war and some led back to Israel and its lobby. All of the most passionate cheerleaders for war were also passionate about protecting Israel. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had been paying money to the families of Palestinians killed by Israel and there was a perception that he was a potential military threat. When the U.S. took over control in Baghdad one of the first projects to be considered was a pipeline to move Iraqi oil to the Israeli port of Haifa.
Fast forward eight years, to the end of the U.S. military presence. The neocons continued to see a strategic objective in the shambles that they had made. In an op-ed in the Washington Post on the impending U.S. departure from Iraq one year ago, neocons Kimberly and Fred Kagan delusionally entertained five “American core interests” in the region. They were: that Iraq should continue to be one unified state; that there should be no al-Qaeda on its soil; that Baghdad abides by its international responsibilities; that Iraq should contain Iran; and that the al-Maliki government should accept U.S. “commitment” to the region. As the Kagans are first and foremost apologists for Israel, it should be observed that Iraq’s “international responsibilities” would be understood as referring to the expectation that Baghdad not be hostile to Tel Aviv.
But looking back a bit, in 2003 Iraq was a good deal more unified and stable than it is today; there was no al-Qaeda or other terrorist presence; Saddam generally abided by a sanctions regime imposed by the U.N.; and Iraq was the principal Arab frontline state restraining Iran’s ambitions. Then, as now, the U.S. was clearly “committed” to the region through the overwhelming presence of its armed forces and one should add parenthetically that Iraq in no way threatened the United States, or anyone else. It was precisely the U.S. invasion that dismantled the Iraqi nation state, introduced al-Qaeda to the country, wrecked the nation’s economy, and brought into power a group of Shi’a leaders who are anti-democratic and adhere much closer to Tehran and Syria than to Washington. Nor are they very friendly to Israel, quite the contrary, and there is no oil pipeline. So none of the “core interests” sought by the United States as defined by neocon doctrine have actually been achieved, or, rather, they have actually been reversed due to the invasion and occupation by the United States arranged and carried out by the Pentagon neoconservatives.
And then there is the cost. The U.S. lost nearly 5,000 soldiers killed plus 35,000 more wounded while the documented Iraqi dead number more than 110,000, though the actual total is almost certainly much, much higher, perhaps exceeding one million. Ancient Christian communities in Iraq have all but disappeared. Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz has estimated that the total cost of the war will be in the $5 trillion plus range when all the bills are finally paid. The U.S. economy has suffered grave and possibly fatal damage as a result of a war that need not have taken place.
The lesson to be learned from Iraq is actually quite simple. Military intervention in a foreign land unless a genuine vital interest is at stake is a fool’s errand due to the unforeseen consequences that develop from any war. And when intervention is actually necessary (hard to imagine what those circumstances would be) it must have an exit strategy that starts almost immediately. Remembering the government chicanery that led to the events of 2003 through 2011 means that the lies that are currently being floated to justify regime change in both Syria and Iran by the same neocons who produced the Iraq debacle should be treated with extreme skepticism and summarily rejected. Iraq also provides the insights that enable one to judge the Afghanistan enterprise for what it really is: a failure now just as it will be five years from now at far greater cost in lives and treasure for Afghans and Americans alike. If the United States cannot learn from the experience of Iraq it is doomed to repeatedly fail in similar endeavors until the last soldier comes home in a body bag and the last dollar is spent, leaving behind an empty treasury and an impoverished American people.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
- The Protocols for Death – December 5th, 2012
- Netanyahu’s War Crime – November 28th, 2012
- Educating the President – November 21st, 2012
- Israel’s Real Agenda – November 14th, 2012
- Kill Lists Will Continue – November 7th, 2012
davidgrayling
December 12th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
The USA is incapable of learning anything. It keeps doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. According to Einstein, that is a clear sign of insanity.
The Imperialists running the USA are brain-dead. The U.S. is broke yet still it keeps building up its armies and starting more wars.
When are the American people going to revolt and throw their politicians over a cliff, the whole bloody lot of them including the Imperial President?
Oso Politico
December 13th, 2012 at 1:48 am
When? Never. The New American is a conformist, a follower, a fear-filled little creature that scurries for cover at the first sign of controversy.
Jay N
December 13th, 2012 at 2:24 am
Dear Mr Giraldi, This is yet another in your not-to-be-missed cache of articles… As always well conceived and compellingly told…. Thank you
Augustbrhm
December 13th, 2012 at 3:00 am
america`s pro consul in Iraq was another name for a neocon "THIEF"
richard vajs
December 13th, 2012 at 5:52 am
Short and to the point :
Neocons = Israeli-Firsters
Corruption in Congress = Israeli-First policy
America's decline = Israeli-First policies
Salvation for America reputation abroad = cut all ties to Israel
Johnny in Wi.
December 13th, 2012 at 6:04 am
Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore and Lieberman were all awful. Does anyone think Gore Lieberman would of kept us out of Iraq? In fact I believe they would of led us into Iran. As bad as Bush was, he refused to go to war with Iran, despite all the pressure the Israeli Lobby exerted.
Patrick
December 13th, 2012 at 6:36 am
Excellent article. I would only point out that to neocons, it was a complete success because of the chaos and breakdown that ensued. They had made no secret of their intent to fragment the Arab countries, beginning with Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" and then Richard Perle came along later and refined the scheme for Netanyahu. The only alteration to the original plan was to use OPM (other people's money), and troops; that of the U.S. The next phase, which we are in, is Syria, and eventually, after Iran, even Saudi Arabia. (See "Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board" By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, Tuesday, August 6, 2002; Page A01).
The Arab Spring threw a little wrinkle into this scheme with the loss of their puppet, Mubarrak, but they are working to fix that. Otherwise, all that has changed over the last 10 years is that the neocons have become more guarded in revealing their full intent of global domination, beginning with the mideast and their local mideast, non-Arab, "allies."
Pashtin
December 13th, 2012 at 6:50 am
BLACKNESS OF THE AMERICAN POLITICIANS IS KILLING THE WORD.
On December 11, US President Barack Obama recognized the opposition coalition in Syria as the legitimate representative of Syrians. On December 12, the entire world recognized Barack Obama as the leader of World terrorism.
Phil Giraldi
December 13th, 2012 at 6:54 am
Good point Pashtin – it is interesting how calling someone a "legitimate representative" shifts the argument. Under almost any other circumstances, the opposition would be regarded as terrorists, which would make Washington a state sponsor of terrorism.
dbriz
December 13th, 2012 at 7:39 am
It does get depressing, doesn't it? Giraldi and others have been pointing out the incoherence of our foreign policies for over a decade to little avail.
Last night on ABC we were treated to the spectacle of Ms. Clinton telling Ms. Walters (ever fawning Ms. Walters) that her greatest fear is IRAN. She went on to talk about their nuclear weapons and accused them de facto of being responsible for nearly ALL the ongoing terrorism in the world today. All with a straight faced no less. Barbara dutifully furrowed her brow at this news.
Millions of us were treated to this peroration while a few thousands of us have ever heard of Phil Giraldi. Or Raimondo. Or Bacevitch. Herin lies a big part of the problem.
Until the "major media" become journalists again rather than mouthpieces for the Empire, we are doomed.
RickR30
December 13th, 2012 at 8:22 am
What if bankrupting the US were the goal all along? Even the dumbest neocon zombie can see that wars cost/waste a lot of money and they should know that the US economy has been in shamples for a while now, after all their cousins run the US economy. They can't possibly claim there there is some financial gain in going to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran.
Bin Laden said the he would bring financial ruin to the US. The neocons and their useful idiots at the Pentagram and elsewhere are abhored at the mere suggestion of reducing war budgets by a penny. The neocons/aipac/israel firsters are responsible for the financial ruin that Bin Laden anounced. They are hence material supporters of Al Qaida and should be detained indefintely as terrorstis.
Generalissimo X
December 13th, 2012 at 9:26 am
exactly. this was never about oil, freedom, or even controlling/limiting russia and china. this was about destroying the world's most free and prosperous nation and its economy: america. mission accomplished!!
chaos and destruction is all these "wars" are about.
Generalissimo X
December 13th, 2012 at 9:28 am
well that's a subjective opinion there johnny and there's no proof of that whatsoever. and the only reason bush and cheney didn't hit iran was fox fallon and a few other guys in the pentagon told them to shove it. cheney was all for dressing up cia ops as iranians and trying to attack a u.s. navy ship in the straights of hormuz.
Generalissimo X
December 13th, 2012 at 9:34 am
first statement 100% true. 2nd statement: it's the citizens who are brain dead, the imperialists know exactly what they are doing: running america deliberately off a cliff. it was the plan from day 1. the last statement: never. they just keep voting for stooges over and over, bicker over partisan crap while both parties are controlled by the exact same interests. obama romney obama romney. someone else?! nahhh…
what you need here is a violent overthrow and nobody has the stones or stomach for it. many are still deluded that there is a political option to all of this. there is not.
Lorraine
December 13th, 2012 at 10:47 am
All correct, hence the need for a new understanding and assessment of our "special relationship" with the sons of Zion. They are the unseen hand (well, to most of the U.S., anyway) in all these matters.
PEACE EVER AFTER
December 13th, 2012 at 11:39 am
The only way to bring peace to the ME is for Iran to develope nuclear weapons and point them toward the Zionist State.. Then there will be a balance of power forcing every one to a peacefull resolution. The West Bank should be incorporated into Israel with one person one vote. A better alternative would be incorporation into Jordan as it was prior to 1967 . The puppet king should be removed and a democratic government established. Gaza should go to Egypt as an autonomous province.
. A bit of good news is that N. Korea was successfull in launching the space rocket. That along with it's nuclear capabilities means it is safe from imperialist US intervention. In time there will be peacefull unification with the south as there was betwenn East and West Germany..,
mulegino
December 13th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Washington D.C. has gone from the governing seat of a Republic to the throne of a moronocracy.
Intellectual curiousity, creativity and political will to govern in the national and public interest are at an all time low; the governing imbibe the trite conventional unwisdom with slack jawed imbecility.
and heave led to the current revolving door of incompetence, sycophancy, insiderism, corruption.
Our American Leviathan thrives on fear, war, partisan strife, the politics of identity and the balkanization of the electorate into tribal interests, easily managed and played off one against the other. It is, therefore, easy pickings for the foreign agents and dual loyalists- those perrenial weevles who who burrow their way into the soft and rotten heart of a corrupt society.
Only a great national awakening led by a great and incorruptible statesman can counter them now, but- sadly, there are no more Washingtons in D.C.
danielet
December 13th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Vietnam War occupied a decade of my life. Its relevance as an issue of Socialist Internationalism vs. US Imperialism was great, for, though US imperialism was little of an issue in Vietnam, the US imperial points sappui were very much at issue in Vietnam. Maos comment about Vietnam: one, two three&.many revolutions, suggesting that defeat in Vietnam would have loooong tails elsewhere was quite to the point, Iraq being a case in point. Let us remember that with GW Bush AMERICANOT the UNimposed on the world a lot of GLOBALIST notions. The excuse for invading Iraq: it is building nuclear bombs&and the later excuse once the nuclear part turned out to be mere Bush-it, that Saddam had to be removed because he used chemical weapons on his own people brought to an end traditional national sovereignty historic traditions. Indeed, Bush single handedly (with a push start from Clinton when president) invoked a made up as you go globalism that essential invoked Americas right to do whatever it wants militarily BECAUSE IT CAN. Bush got quite a lesson in naked imperialism from Israel because it wanted the US to serve as its large mad dog on a chain that it selectively lets loose on the Muslim World. The idea was first Iraq and next Iran, with the result that Israel totally dominates the Middle East, using Turkey as its flunky. To that end, the craziest of Zionistseeming like ZIONAZISwere hawks that (a) never went to war and (b) never sacrificed their upper West Side apartments for the Israeli frontline of Zionism, instead making quite a bundle as madmen admen for the military-industrial complex Ike warned us about. The idea was to become Israels hit man so that American society would never see the post-Cold War $$$benefits because they would be spent as Israels warrior. Since Israels enemies happened to be Saudi Arabias at the same time, Riyadh could pursue a dual track: Fundamentalist Sunni domination of the Muslim World and destruction by American power of all its Muslim Shia and Sunni and secular challenges to domination of Muslim World.
wars r u.s.
December 13th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I still recall bush/cheney being pi**ed about our intelligence agencies saying Iran wasn't building a nuke and had quit trying in 2003. They wanted war plenty. I expected revisionist history but not so soon.
Jaime
December 13th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Interesting how all the roads lead to the same solution: throw Israel under the bus.
PEACE EVER AFTER
December 13th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
It is the only solution unless Israel is willing to change it's behavior and begin treating the indeginous populations as equals. .
jan
December 13th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Why not remember Afghanistan too. The Taliban were our friends. The Taliban hated the communists, and any foreign invader including Russia. We ran right by the fabled bin Laden and went for the Taliban. Why don't you talk of them as much as talk of Iraq How many of them died. Afghanistan must be the good war? What of Bosnia before that? If you think Iraq is the beginning and the end you are wrong.
jan
December 13th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
UN imposed non sense started with Korea dope.
Why Remember Iraq?
December 13th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/12/12/why-remember-iraq/ [...]
Why western military intervention in Syria is coming soon: to protect Israel
December 13th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/12/12/why-remember-iraq/ [...]
Listen to fmr CIA analyst Ray McGovern discuss USS Liberty & Syria WMD propaganda!
December 13th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/12/12/why-remember-iraq/ [...]
US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD
December 13th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/12/12/why-remember-iraq/ [...]
Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)
December 13th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/12/12/why-remember-iraq/ [...]
AmericaFirstNow
December 13th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Israel lobby pushing Syrian regime change to weaken Iran (also see links after the Sniegoski article at following link)!:
http://tinyurl.com/jamesmorrisoncrosstalk
richard vajs
December 14th, 2012 at 4:18 am
"throw Israel under the bus"? I prefer to look it at as, "finally drive a stake through its evil heart"
justin mungal
December 14th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Another great article, as ever, by Philip Giraldi and like one commenter above mentioned, Philip and other like him have been doing this for decades but so very underrated unfortunately. As one mentions above Im inclined to believe it won't just stop at Iran but they will go onto saudi arabia and who knows perhaps the caucasus and then if they get that far, china and russia.
antiwaramerica
December 15th, 2012 at 5:47 am
After all this time after Iraq, we have made no progress in waking anyone up. There was a letter in my local paper the other day blaming the media for not talking about Halabja, and how it didn't matter that there were no weapons. It certainly mattered in the months before the war, and when they sent Powell to the UN to spin his mobile weapons lab stories. The people who support the wars will never admit that they were wrong, or relent from their pursuit of more US expansionism.
Antiwar.com Newsletter | December 15, 2012 - Unofficial Network
December 15th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
[...] that keep on giving. Philip Giraldi urged us to remember Iraq. [...]