The Other Side of Life

In late 2001, the U.S. government stated its intent to "remove a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world," leading to the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the Bush Administration.

Although tension and conflict between Iraq never officially ended since the Gulf War, the events of 9/11 were enough to initiate the subsequent decision to focus on Saddam Hussein and his regime, although the U.S. initially launched strikes against Afghanistan.

So, how does a strategy shift from attacking a terrorist leader in one country to a dictator in another? In early 2001, shortly after George W. Bush took office, a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" was released and reported to discuss potential locations for oil exploration. Well before the September 11 terrorist attack the government already had it's eye on Iraq.

But, there were supposedly more reasons than just oil. The country failed to comply with a 1991 cease-fire, allegedly nurtured Al-Qaeda terrorists and was reportedly willing and capable of using weapons of mass destruction. Under these premises, an initiative against the nation was justified; however, the manner in which it was initiated remained questionable.

What started as an assault against Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members around the Afghanistan and Pakistan border escalated into a "War on Terror," starting an American conquest of the Middle East. It's from here that things get complicated and intentions confused. 

Some argued that the war was for freedom, peace and national security. Others viewed it as a quest for oil, and some even saw it as a money generator for a nation who capitalized from war. Whatever it was, though, it resulted in many lives lost and a worldwide increase of anti-American sentiment.

Once again, we were warmongers and the global bullies who neither listened to the UN nor our own vocal (not silent) majority. So, when it was all over, what did we have to show for it? Not the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks, and certainly not weapons of mass destruction.

"We got him," President Bush told the American people. It was Saddam Hussein.  He was the man who, for so long, had been seen as the true American nemesis. Many people were relieved by the capture, seeing it as an end to the Iraq War and a trophy for the previous conflict.  How wrong they were…

Although democracy is present in Iraq, there are still daily terrorist attacks, an unemployment rate of 35 percent and a nation torn apart by loss and grief.

The war also cost the lives of over 4,400 Americans and more than $748 billion, making it the most expensive U.S. war apart from WWII in current U.S. dollars, according to USA Today. Even though the violence never ended, American military presence in Iraq is gradually decreasing from 160,000 service members in 2007 to 50,000 by the end of this year.

The result is the equivalent to a fill in the blank problem: We Came.  We Saw. We (blank). 

Was seeing Saddam Hussein hanged worth the lives lost, money lost and time wasted? How can there be a debate on whether a war is over or not, and what constitutes it being over?

If the end of violence and hostility is what constitutes the end, then the war is far from over. However, if the removal of troops after a seven-year battle ending in little progress constitutes an ending, then things are wrapping up swiftly.