Future historians, no doubt, will be divided on a final verdict. Just like with the Vietnam war, now safely tucked away in the pages of aging history books, the Iraq war never acquired a clear strategic context beyond the fatal generalities of politicians. Those who chose to accept the rather simplistic version of the Bush administration (going to war against Saddam to bring ‘democracy’ to the Middle East) stand on thin ground, however. Even if the Bush “democracy project” was genuinely conceived as a help-them-get-their-act-together noble endeavor, the Iraq war was tragically devoid of the kind of robust strategic thinking that makes the critical difference during times of great peril. Mr. Bush’s folly was allowed to become “policy,” with disastrous effect.
The withdrawal of the majority of US troops from Iraq does not in any way interrupt American involvement in that country’s affairs. While the “end” of the war, declared by President Obama, spares US troops more unnecessary combat deaths, America is far from free from the Iraq noose. Take one look at the enormous, literally fortified US embassy compound in Baghdad and you get a sense of how deep and lasting the US role in Iraq will be.
At a time like this, there is always pressure for immediate “lessons” to be drawn from the conflict. The US military, for one, is divided on many aspects of the operational part of the war. The 2007 surge, credited by many of Mr. Obama’s political opponents as the key event that led to a tactical turnaround in Iraq, will need to be dissected carefully to reveal its exact impact and ultimate military value. Politically, there isn’t much to celebrate. As usual, America plunged into an ancient killing conflict that it neither could understand nor correctly interpret despite much “immersion” by “experts,” both civilian and military, and the usual thousands of acres of print. This is exactly what happened with Vietnam as well. The not so sparkling results are too well known to require much elaboration.
When American troops first crossed the Iraqi border from Kuwait on March 20, 2003, Mr. Obama was a state senator from Illinois. He opposed the war from the outset. As US President today, he has made good on his promise to stop “open-ended war” in the Middle East now that, ostensibly, the Iraqis can take control of their own affairs. The Iraqis have openly disputed they have this capability. Irrespectively, Mr. Obama wants American troops to come home and nobody can blame him.
Mr. Obama’s August 31 message understandably played down the obvious fact that Iraq is unfinished business. The country’s vicious political, religious, cultural and economic divisions should be expected to burgeon now that no US Stryker brigades are within earshot. “Open-ended war” is still very much alive. “Interested” neighbors, like Iran, are restless. Turkey, in the background, embarking on its own Islamic quest, has never given up on Kirkuk.
In the end, it is never over until it is truly over.