Follow us on social

‘Mission Accomplished’ was a massive fail — but it was just the beginning

‘Mission Accomplished’ was a massive fail — but it was just the beginning

Bush’s speech, 20 years ago this week, may seem foolish if not dangerous in hindsight, especially since US troops are still in Iraq today.

Analysis | Middle East

Twenty years ago on May 1, President George W. Bush took to the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to announce that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

In front of a now-infamous banner on the carrier’s bridge reading “Mission Accomplished,” President Bush declared victory before the United States and Iraq had yet to experience the fullest extent of that war, which began three months earlier in March 2003.

Sixty years before Bush’s speech, Prime Minister Winston Churchill offered a more measured assessment of the fruits of temporary victory.

After the 1942 Allied success at the Second Battle of El-Alamein, Churchill soberly prepared his country for the long, remaining struggle ahead to defeat the Nazi war machine. “Now is not the end,” he remarked, “It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Had Americans known the chaos that was set to unfold over the next two decades in Iraq, they may have found Churchill’s adage more fitting.

In fairness, President Bush was right to congratulate the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in Operation Iraqi Freedom for executing a stunningly successful conventional military campaign that cut across 350 miles to Baghdad in less than a month. But we cannot let appreciation of tactical and operational skill blind us to the geopolitical hubris of a war that brought strategic disaster to the United States and indelibly altered the lives of millions of Iraqis.

In his address, President Bush expressed an unfounded post-Cold War optimism about America’s ability to remake the world in its image by force rather than by example. Arguing that advances in military technology allowed regime change wars to be more achievable while minimizing civilian casualties, Bush stated “it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.” The sad reality is that, in 2003 alone — the year of Bush’s speech — an estimated 12,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the conflict.

It is hard to square the president’s hopes for a moral outcome in Iraq with the invasion’s most brutal legacy — the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed every year for most of the rest of the 2000s. By creating a power vacuum, the invasion allowed opportunists to inflame latent sectarian divisions, spiraling the country into savage confessional and tribal conflict. To date, an estimated 187,000 to 210,000 Iraqi civilians died in the violence of the Iraq War. Much of this total is also due to the rise of ISIS in the 2010s, a group formed from Sunni insurgent factions that took root following the invasion.

The legacy of Wilsonian idealism can make it difficult for U.S. decisionmakers to accept that foreign policy necessarily involves sober tradeoffs more often than lopsided victories. Saddam Hussein directed a brutal regime, and Iraqis deserved a better future. But it has never been enough to justify a foreign policy strategy through a confident claim of its moral superiority when its implementation unleashes such monstrously immoral outcomes.

At the time of the president’s speech, Americans had yet to pay the main costs of the Iraq War. The years immediately following “Mission Accomplished” were the deadliest in the conflict, which has left 4,500 U.S. troops killed and over 32,000 wounded. American taxpayers can expect to pay nearly $3 trillion for the Iraq War through 2050 when factoring the costs of veterans’ care, war-related defense spending increases, and additional interest on the national debt.

On a strategic level, President Bush was even more pollyannaish. He declared that, in deposing Saddam, the U.S. had “removed an ally of al-Qaeda” and prevented terrorist networks from “gain[ing] weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime.” These claims reinforced since-disproven narratives that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to begin with, or that the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction.

The key results of the invasion were two-fold: it empowered Iran to expand its influence in Iraq and across the Middle East by removing a check, and it aided our great power competitors, Russia and China, by distracting us in counterinsurgency operations for decades, delaying modernization programs, and wearing out our all-volunteer force and its strategic assets — such as the B-1 bomber fleet — from overuse.

How can we turn the page on this failed legacy? First and foremost, it is past time for U.S. forces to exit Iraq. We have long-since defeated ISIS’ territorial caliphate, leaving no clearly achievable mission left for U.S. forces. Further, the ability of the U.S. and its allies to launch strikes against ISIS leaders is well-proven. Remaining in Iraq only makes U.S. forces subject to ongoing attack from Iranian-backed militias, which have documented ties to the very Iraqi security forces our troops are training and equipping. If the president is unwilling to remove U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress should consider ending funding for our continued presence there, the same method it used to help finally bring the Vietnam War to a close.

Secondly, Americans must demand that Congress take seriously its constitutional obligation to decide questions of war and peace to avoid foolishly sending our men and women in uniform rushing headlong into conflict, or, worse, keeping them in harm’s way for decades with no clear objectives. The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq, which provided the legal basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom, was introduced and sent to the White House in just over a week, despite the sweeping consequences of the war.

Americans and our troops deserve greater deliberation when we are choosing a war rather than having it thrust upon us. Congress cannot be a mere rubber-stamping body for executive action.

To this day, both Iraq AUMFs, from the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion, are still active, leaving open the possibility that a president could misuse them to take us back into war in the region without securing congressional approval first. Fortunately, a repeal effort recently passed the Senate with 66 votes, and is headed to the House, which has already voted to repeal Iraq AUMFs four times. Americans should demand that their representatives finally finish the job.

Twenty years later, the “Mission Accomplished” speech is a tragic reminder of the consequences of seeing the world how we wish it could be rather than how it is. For the sacrifices our servicemembers and the Iraqi people faced in its wake, May 2003 must inspire a rededication to a foreign policy firmly rooted in American national interests that promotes our values by example rather than by the sword.


The White House said on October 29, 2003 that it had helped with the production of a "Mission Accomplished" banner as a backdrop for President George W. Bush's speech onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare combat operations over in Iraq. This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. REUTERS/Larry Downing/FILE KL/GN/GAC|President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office at the White House Wednesday evening, March 19, 2003. White House photo by Paul Morse
Analysis | Middle East
Trump steve Bannon
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump (White House/Flickr) and Steve Bannon (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Don't read the funeral rites for MAGA restraint yet

Washington Politics

On the same night President Donald Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes against Iran, POLITICO reported, “MAGA largely falls in line on Trump’s Iran strikes.”

The report cited “Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks,” who posted on X, “Iran gave President Trump no choice.” It noted that former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a longtime Trump supporter, “said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict.” Gaetz said. “Trump the Peacemaker!”

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.