ShareThis Page

Casualties of war

| Saturday, March 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, it's clear who lost the war that followed. But it may be years before we know if anyone won.

Topping the loser's columns, of course, is Saddam Hussein, with the world better for it. Yet, despite his demise, America is also the loser. The goals the Bush administration set for the war were never achievable and the costs were greater than most Americans realize — not just in lives and money squandered but in reputation lost.

Iraqis were freed from Hussein but a botched American occupation led to a civil war that killed more than 100,000 civilians and forced millions to flee the country. Despite elections, Iraq still has a government that arrests and tortures political opponents and runs a secret police state.

Indeed, in the near term, the biggest winner from the war looks to be Iran, whose influence on Iraq has grown while America's has shrunk.

A decade later, it's painful to recall the certainty of many top U.S. occupation officials that they could remake the country. This attitude was most prevalent among those with no Mideast experience, who would accuse anyone who tried to contradict them of “ignoring the good news.”

More than 4,000 American lives were lost, and countless billions of dollars wasted because U.S. officials misread Iraq and mismanaged the war's aftermath. An occupation that embraced willful blindness was bound to fail.

Ditto for an invasion based on illusions. The Iraq war was justified by White House claims that Hussein was secretly building nukes and was in cahoots with al-Qaida. The Bush team ignored plentiful prewar evidence that neither of these claims was true.

President George W. Bush and several senior officials believed Hussein's fall would trigger the rise of friendly democracies in Iraq and throughout the region. Of course, the real Iraq proved wholly different from White House expectations. In 2007, Bush's troop “surge” calmed the sectarian slaughter and prevented a humiliating U.S. defeat. But far from providing a model for regional change, Iraq became the nightmare example that Arab democrats sought to avoid.

Contrary to White House dreams, the war transformed Iran into the major power broker in Baghdad; Iraq's newly empowered Shiite leaders depend on co-religionists in Tehran for political support against their Sunni minority and neighboring Sunni states.

Hundreds of Iraqis remain under death threat because they worked for the U.S. military, contractors or civilian officials and still haven't received promised U.S. visas. Tens of thousands of educated Iraqis, the cream of the middle class, including thousands of endangered Christians, have fled from persecution by newly empowered Islamists.

Yet Iraq still has the opportunity to move forward — largely because of oil.

A decade after the war, Iraq oil production is finally stable and expanding. The country is producing the largest amount in three decades, nearly 3.35 million barrels daily. The International Energy Agency predicts Iraqi production will double by 2020, setting up Iraq as a rival to the Saudis, perhaps lessening its dependence on Iran.

Oil, of course, can be a curse for a “petro-state” such as Iraq whose economy is almost totally dependent on oil revenue. That revenue is the perfect lubricant for dictators.

There's no sign American companies will get a lion's share of Iraqi oil contracts — contrary to the widespread belief that Washington went to war for oil. But by keeping global oil prices stable, an increased Iraqi oil flow will undercut the regime in Tehran, which depends on high oil prices. It will also help Baghdad offset Iranian pressures.

It's a small victory but hardly recompense for American losses.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.