Memo to McCain: Define “Victory” in Iraq

Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for US President, says that Senator Barack Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq responsibly but quickly would constitute declaring failure. McCain would keep US forces in Iraq until they achieve “victory”.

What is our mission in Iraq? What are our goals? McCain and other war-supporters use “victory” as a stock, pat answer, without explaining what they mean. The troops deserve more, the American people deserve more, and the world deserves more.

What could “victory” mean? Let’s examine several likely meanings to see if they are achievable.

An Unjustified War Has No Winners

Before we consider what Republicans might mean by “victory”, remember that the US invaded Iraq based on two false claims: 1) that Iraq was behind the September 11, 2008 terrorist attacks in the US, and 2) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction hidden away and was developing more, threatening Middle East stability. Bush administration officials knew both claims were false, so the war was based on lies.

Because the Iraq war was started on false premises, one could argue that it cannot be won. Why? Because the invading countries — the US and its allies — suffered human and financial losses that they could have avoided by not invading. Over 4500 Coalition troops have died — gone forever. More die each day the war continues. An unjustified war is a lose-lose proposition: both sides lose.

Furthermore, a huge number of Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invaded in 2003. Civilian casualties in Iraq are not tracked precisely, but credible estimates range from tens of thousands to almost a million. Whatever the number, the war has, over the past five years, killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein ever did. Without the war, most of those civilians would still be alive.

In addition to the dead, hundreds of thousands on both sides have been injured, physically and psychologically. The US, its Coalition partner-countries, and Iraq will pay for these injuries for decades.

The Iraq war has inflicted not only human casualties, but also financial ones. It has cost the Coalition countries, primarily the US, billions — even trillions — of dollars. Most of that has been wasted. The war’s financial cost has raised the US national debt to record levels. The financial cost to Iraq is incalculable.

Based on this reasoning, the Iraq war was lost the moment the US-led Coalition launched its first attacks in March 2003.

Republican Criteria for “Victory”: Acheivable?

Republicans and other supporters of the Iraq war of course do not view war that way. To them, a war is a zero-sum game that always has a winner and a loser. OK, fine: what might count as “winning” the Iraq war in the eyes of such people? I see the following possibilities:

All Insurgents Eliminated. This criterion for “victory” ignores the war’s realities. Initially, the US and its coalition partners fought Hussein’s Baathist army and party loyalists. They quickly folded, melting away into the populace. The war became a guerrilla war. Insurgents began coming to Iraq from around the Islamic world to fight the “infidel invaders”, just as they went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviet “infidels”. They are still coming to Iraq, recruited from Sunni madrassas all over the middle-east, north Africa, and central Asia. The supply is infinite due to strong anti-Americanism and high unemployment in the Sunni Islamic world. A second source of hostile forces is Iraq’s Shiites. Radical Shiite warlords such as Muqtada al-Sadr formed militias to fight the Sunnis and the Americans in an attempt to increase and consolidate Shiite power and control of Iraq’s oil. Some Shiite militias are supported by Iran, Iraq’s mostly-Shiite neighbor and former foe. Finally, many Iraqis who would otherwise be peaceful are radicalized by mistreatment — not to mention killing — of their families and kinsmen, creating another infinite supply of new insurgents. The goal of killing or capturing all insurgents in Iraq is simply impossible.
No Need for Combat. In May 2003, three months after attacking Iraq, President George W. Bush stood under a huge “Mission Accomplished” sign and declared that “major combat operations have ended” in Iraq. That claim now seems almost insanely naive and ill-informed. Similarly, the Soviet Union declared victory shortly after it invaded Afghanistan in 1978, but then became mired in a ten-year guerilla war from which it eventually withdrew. The US’s own effort to eliminate Al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan also seemed like a quick victory, but now, seven years later, is looking more and more like the decade-long quagmire that the Soviets eventually gave up on. Is an actual end to combat operations in Iraq within sight? No, it isn’t.
Al Qaeda out of Iraq. This criterion for “victory” is ironic, since Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US launched the war. Al Qaeda leaders such as Osama bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein (a fellow Sunni Moslem) to be a ruthless “secular infidel” who terrorized his own people, which Hussein was. Saddam Hussein considered bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders to be fundamentalist religious fanatics who advocate theocracy, which they are. The US invasion and removal of Hussein created a power vacuum and shifted what little power remained in Iraqi hands from Hussein’s Baathist Sunnis to the Shiite majority. Al Queda, a Sunni organization, didn’t like that and also doesn’t like the US, so they moved into Iraq. Can the US eliminate Al Queda from Iraq? Only by allowing Shiite ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, turning Iraq into an entirely Shiite country. The resulting Iraq would be sympathetic to its neighbor and past enemy Iran, and could become an Iran annex. Most Republicans would not consider a Shiite Iraq to be a victory, even if hostilities ceased.

I welcome comments suggesting other criteria for “victory”.

Since none of the plausible criteria for “victory” are achievable, victory in the Iraq war is not achievable.

Peace Pundit