In the early days of the Iraq war, many can remember the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled over by masses of Iraqi nationals. It epitomized the hope for a new era in the Middle East.
The struggle for a nation to build a new identity has proved to be very difficult. Sunni and Shiite divisions as well as political uncertainty have left Iraq very vulnerable.
After the United States withdrew most of its military presence in late 2011, the problem has only been exacerbated. The recent developments with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) just goes to show that Iraq was not ready to go it alone. With many of Iraq's cities now under ISIS control, only time will tell if their foothold will continue or grow throughout the Middle East region.
Eleven years have passed since the original 2003 invasion and it has had a direct impact on the current political climate in America. The war was clearly an anchor to President Bush in his second term and may have played a factor in the Democratic takeover of congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.
From the beginning I generally supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq but my view has evolved tremendously. My current pessimistic view of the war has little to do with any of the typical reasons. Most left-leaning folks from liberals to progressives opposed the war primarily out of dislike of Bush. They may have cited alternate reasons but it usually came down to the same talking points like Bush lied, he did it to get revenge for his daddy, there were no weapons of mass destruction, or it was a war for oil. All of these are devoid of rational fact, reason and history.
My change of heart is not full out disapproval but rather a consideration of what we did or didn't gain as a result of so much sacrifice. Approximately 4,000 Americans died, countless others injured and billions of dollars were spent, and yet we find ourselves with an even more unstable Middle East. At least some part of the blame could now be placed at the feet of President Obama but his inconsistent policies in foreign affairs may have only illuminated an already bad situation.
I have always believed that in the face of growing global terrorism, President Bush's deeper intended goal was to change the face of the Middle East and that Iraq was the most logical insertion point. I did however understand that this had to be a long-term proposition. Simply dethroning one rogue dictator would do little to demonstrate how Western democracy could benefit the Islamic world.
What I did underestimate was the American psyche. It is now clear that the US population simply does not have the intestinal fortitude for this kind of effort. The Bush policies were not so much a failure as was the resolve of the American populace. We have grown accustomed to a la carte foreign policy where we call for a simple action to eliminate very complicated problems. Global terrorism is not an issue that can be conquered with the swipe of a pen, a brief military operation or world apology tours. It is deeply embedded into a cultural identity that has existed for generations.
I often wonder how we would ever handle a much more seismic event like World War II today. Could we stomach the loss of 400,000 troops? Would we make the financial and resource sacrifices in our personal lives for such a war effort? Could we attain any degree of unity as a country? Sadly, I'm not sure our current state of mind could.
