Follow us on social

google cta
‘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
google cta
google cta

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
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Trump corollory
Top image credit: President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting, Tuesday, December 2, 2025, in the Cabinet Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's 'Monroe Doctrine 2.0' completely misreads Latin America

Latin America

The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, “a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests,” stating that “the American people—not foreign nations nor globalist institutions—will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere,” is a key component of the National Security Strategy 2025 released last week by the Trump administration.

Putting the Western Hemisphere front and center as a U.S. foreign policy priority marks a significant shift from the “pivot to Asia” launched in President Obama’s first term.

keep readingShow less
Doha Forum 2025
Top image credit: a panel discussion during the 23rd edition of the Doha Forum 2025 at the Sheraton Grand Doha Resort & Convention Hotel in Doha, Qatar, on December 6, 2025. (Photo by Noushad Thekkayil/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT

'In Trump we trust': Arab states frustrated with stalled Gaza plan

Middle East

Hamas and Israel are reportedly moving toward negotiating a "phase two" of the U.S.-lead ceasefire but it is clear that so many obstacles are in the way, particularly the news that Israel is already calling the "yellow line" used during the ceasefire to demarcate its remaining military occupation of the Gaza Strip the "new border."

“We have operational control over extensive parts of the Gaza Strip, and we will remain on those defence lines,” said Israeli military chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir on Sunday. “The yellow line is a new border line, serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity.”

keep readingShow less
‘This ain’t gonna work’: How Russia pulled the plug on Assad
Top Image Credit: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (Harold Escalona / Shutterstock.com)

‘This ain’t gonna work’: How Russia pulled the plug on Assad

Middle East

In early November of last year, the Assad regime had a lot to look forward to. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had just joined fellow Middle Eastern leaders at a pan-Islamic summit in Saudi Arabia, marking a major step in his return to the international fold. After the event, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had spent years trying to oust Assad, told reporters that he hoped to meet with the Syrian leader and “put Turkish-Syrian relations back on track.”

Less than a month later, Assad fled the country in a Russian plane as Turkish-backed opposition forces began their final approach to Damascus. Most observers were taken aback by this development. But long-time Middle East analyst Neil Partrick was less surprised. As Partrick details in his new book, “State Failure in the Middle East,” the seemingly resurgent Assad regime had by that point been reduced to a hollowed-out state apparatus, propped up by foreign backers. When those backers pulled out, Assad was left with little choice but to flee.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.