We won. The Iraq War is over.
I declare November 22, 2008 to be "Victory in Iraq Day." (Hereafter known as "VI Day.")
 |
What more indication do you need? An announcement from the outgoing Bush administration? It's not gonna happen. An announcement from the incoming Obama administration? That's really not gonna happen. A declaration of victory by the media? Please. Don't make me laugh. A concession of surrender by what few remaining insurgents remain in hiding? Forget about it.
The moment has come to acknowledge the obvious. To overtly declare a fact that has already been true for quite some time now. Let me repeat:
And since there will never be a ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue in New York for our troops, it's up to us, the people, to arrange a virtual ticker-tape parade. An online victory celebration.WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ
Saturday, November 22, 2008 is the day of that celebration: Victory in Iraq Day.
 |
If you want to write a short post (or a long essay) analyzing the nature of our victory or cheering the troops for a job well done, great; but if you just want to make a simple announcement of the victory, that's fine as well. Anything will do. Just come and join the celebration to mark the day.
Keep reading below to find: evidence that the war is over (for the doubters); an historical discussion of previous postwar occupations and guerrilla violence; a list of blogs which have already joined the VI Day movement; free banners and graphics for you to download and put on your blog, if you so choose; and an invitation to submit your own "victory graphics" for posting here.
(If you would like to comment on VI Day, you can do so here.)
Observations and statistics agree: The fighting has ceased, the war is over
I have felt for many months that we had already won the war, but I was spurred to action by this report from Michael Yon:
"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything."This email giving a first-hand account from Baghdad was posted on November 17 at Confederate Yankeee:
Just touched down 3 +/- hours ago at Sather AB [in Baghdad]. Dude... INSANELY changed doesn't begin to describe this place. I've land[ed] in Baghdad under fire before and watched random acts of anti-aircraft fire overhead as the locals would try and unsuccessfully utilize old triple a flak guns... I've seen Baghdad under lock and key so to speak throughout 04 and 05. NUTHIN and I do mean NUTHIN can begin to describe the change. Quick observations included the fact that the city was all lit up where it had never been before. Try standing on the runway and not having to worry about random acts of rockets, mortars and suchlike. Try no body armor seen on anyone anywhere since I've been here... This place is so laid back its stupid dude... I'll post more to you and my blog later... but as Yon said "We Won." I'd have to add "In Spades!" to that.This post at the Mudville Gazette confirmed my conclusions.
On the political front in Iraq, victory has broken out as well. On Sunday, November 16, Iraq's cabinet approved a security agreement with the U.S. which top analysts and pundits are saying is the closest we'll ever get to a bureaucratic declaration of victory and of the war's end. Hugh Hewitt, for example, says:
The Battle For Iraq Has Been Won. Will The President-elect Preserve The Victory?The News & Observer newspaper came to the same conclusion three months ago, and many of the points are still valid:
Yesterday's vote by the Iraqi cabinet to approve a status of forces agreement confirms what most reasonable people had concluded this summer --that the battle for Iraq is over and the country is stable and secure even though its enemies remain in small enclaves within the country and across the border in Iran. It has taken five years and come at a high cost in American lives lost and in thousands of wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
It is, however, a crucial victory in the war against Islamist extremism and for stability in the Middle East.
Somebody has to write this. The United States has won the war in Iraq.The full article (see the link) outlines many convincing facts about the state of victory in Iraq. The only thing missing is announcing the date of the war's end. Which this post rectifies.
I'm compelled to proclaim victory because, these days, winning wars has become politically incorrect in Western societies. So much so that some political leaders opposed to the war refuse to recognize the definition of victory or to utter the word.
More than five years after the invasion, I still come across people who say they don't know what victory in Iraq means. That's on purpose. Feigning ignorance allows them to deny the obvious political and military progress that has been made and continues to be made each day.
The truth is, President Bush has been consistent in defining victory. Bottom line, it's leaving behind a functional and democratic Iraq capable of defending itself from internal and external threats. Iraq is on an irreversible path to meeting those goals.
...
There is no doubt that much work needs to be done in Iraq, particularly in political and cultural reconciliation. But for all the moaning about Parliament's failure to reach political benchmarks, Iraqis have achieved more political unity in their country than our Congress has in ours. A peaceful and stable Iraq is no longer in question. It's only a matter of time.
So the next time I come across an Iraqi War veteran, I'll not only thank him or her for their sacrifice in defending my freedom, I'll also offer congratulations for winning a war.
UPDATE: A month after the fact, the Washington Post finally woke up to reality and themselves announced at the beginning of January, 2009 that the Iraq War is over, though in typical mainstream media style, they still insist it is not a "victory" and that our overwhelming success had no "legitimacy":
The War, in a Sense, Is Over. But a New Struggle Begins As Citizens Ask the Inevitable Question: What Next?
BAGHDAD -- Maybe it was the only shot heard for days in a neighborhood once ordered by the cadence of gunfire. Perhaps it was the smiles at checkpoints and the shouts of Iraqi policemen navigating the always snarled traffic. "God's mercy on your parents," they beseeched. "God's blessings on you." Maybe it was the music box still playing "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town" at a kiosk overflowing with Christmas tree decorations and heart-shaped red pillows.
For anyone returning to Baghdad after spending time here during its darkest days two years ago, when it was paralyzed by sectarian hatred and overrun by gunmen sowing despair, the conclusion seemed inescapable.
"The war has ended," said Heidar al-Abboudi, a street merchant.
The war in Iraq is indeed over, at least the conflict as it was understood during its first five years: insurgency, communal cleansing, gangland turf battles and an anarchic, often futile quest to survive. In other words, civil war -- though civil war was always too tidy a term for it. The entropy, for now at least, has run its course. So have many of the forces the United States so dangerously unleashed with its 2003 invasion, turning Iraq into an atomized, fractured land seized by a paroxysm of brutality. In that Iraq, the Americans were the final arbiter and, as a result, deprived anything they left behind of legitimacy.
Not to say that there is peace in Iraq. As many people are killed today as on any day in 2003 and
2004. [Note: This statistic is patently untrue -- see below.] Nor is there victory.
 |
125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over SummerWhat more need be said? Of course every death and injury of a U.S. soldier is a tragedy and I would wish to see a long string of zeros on that chart over the upcoming months. But being stationed in a nation and a region that has a long history of hostility to the U.S. and an equally long history of violence means that our troops will always face some danger there. Yet "danger" does not equal "war." Whatever lingering violence still exists is Iraq is now nothing more than a series of disconnected terrorist attacks, which have become completely ineffectual in changing the hearts and minds of the populace, or re-igniting another civil war.
Total Is About Double The U.S. Troop Death Toll In Iraq
CHICAGO (CBS) -- An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
[Update: As of March 3, 2009, if you click on the same official casualty statistics link as above, in the subsequent three months, the number of casualties in Iraq remained at extremely low bare-minimum levels, conclusively confirming that this "trend" is now a permanent state of affairs.]
Columnist Ed Morrissey on November 19 points to another kind of benchmark which indicates the war's end: the fact that the Iraqi government in now engaging in infrastructure building projects that would only be possibly in peacetime:
Victory in Iraq: The Baghdad MetroWho gets to decide when it's over?
Eighteen months ago, the capital of Iraq worried more about whether it would survive than traffic control. Now that victory over terrorism and sectarian violence has all but arrived, Baghdad has big plans for its future.
...
Iraq needs to fix its sewer and electrical services before attempting anything on this scale, but the plan demonstrates an optimism about the future that has erupted in its capital. They're already planning a traditional surface-level commuter train to help alleviate car traffic, which has grown overnight into a major headache. Roads and bridges closed due to violence have reopened, and people are once again on the move as Baghdad returns to life.
...
Representative governments have to deliver on their promises. That accounts for at least part of the optimism seen in Iraq, and for the sudden outbreak of big dreaming by Iraqis. They have their future in their own hands for the first time in decades, and the sudden liberation has fueled their imaginations. This, indeed, is what victory looks like.
Indeed, everywhere you look, someone has highlighted yet another detail which, cumulatively, demonstrate that "peace has broken out all over" Iraq.
Each person has their own criteria as to when the war was won: Some say we won the war long ago when we defeated the Iraqi Army in three weeks. Some say we won when the Iraqi government tried and executed Saddam Hussein. Some say we won when Iraqis voted democratically to elect their own leaders. Some say we won when we established control over the entirety of the country last year, eliminating the last remaining insurgent strongholds. Some say we won six months ago when the last remaining organized resistance evaporated.
On the other hand, there are those who are saying (in response to this essay) that we have not reached that magical benchmark. The Iraqi parliament may have passed the security agreement solidifying Iraq's post-war stability, but some people say we should wait until the U.S. Senate approves it before we declare victory. Others say that the war won't be won until casualty levels literally drop to zero. Other say we haven't won until all troops are gone from the country. Others wait in vain for an official announcement.
There is no consensus. And there never will be. Still, the cut-off point between "war" and "not war" has to be drawn somewhere, and if we don't draw the line ourselves, I guarantee it will NEVER be drawn. Because the Left and the media want to make sure that even ten years from now, when perhaps one US soldier is killed per year in an otherwise completely stable Iraq, that still won't qualify as "victory." Because their overarching goal is to to make sure that the war goes down in history as a defeat, no matter what.
My opinion is: This is as good a time to declare victory as we're ever going to get. All signs point to "Yes." If you don't agree, that's perfectly fine, you can ignore this essay. But if you think this is long overdue, then climb on board.
If we won, why are there troops still in Iraq?
Does our victory mean that I advocate the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq? No. Wars may be won but postwar occupations generally don't end crisply and cleanly like that. Troops often stay around to rebuild or to maintain the peace for years, even decades. Hell, the United States still has several military bases and many troops "occupying" Japan and Germany who have been there continuously since the end of World War II in 1945. We have two major Air Bases in Korea leftover from the Korean War. The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba is a remnant of the Spanish-American War and has been there for over a century; the U.S. military also "occupied" the Philippines at Subic Bay for nearly a hundred years as a result of the Spanish-American War. More recently we continue to have a presence in Bosnia at Tuzla Air Base as a consequence of our role in the Bosnian War of the 1990s. What all this means is that it is standard practice in the aftermath of nearly every overseas war in which the U.S. participates for us to keep some troops there on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.
Do I advocate that the domestic government of Iraq continue to assume more and more of a role in its own defense and internal security? Most definitely yes. Do I wish to see U.S. troops going on fewer and fewer patrols and handing over more and more duties to the Iraqi army as time goes by? Yes. Do I wish that there would never be another suicide bombing in Iraq by demented jihadists seeking futilely to destabilize the country? Of course. Do I wish that there would never be another act of violence in Iraq? Naturally. But these things take time. So, even though the war is over, American troops are likely to stay on the ground in Iraqi bases in some capacity for quite some time -- months, years, possibly even decades if circumstances warrant.
But yes, eventually many troops will have to start coming home one way or the other. I am not opposed to an incremental "drawdown" of forces as responsibilities diminish -- which has already started to happen under the Bush administration and will likely continue under an Obama administration. What I do oppose is a reckless immediate evacuation of all American troops in Iraq as some sort of political "reward" from Obama to his antiwar supporters. That would send the wrong message to Islamic extremists around the world that the Americans were somehow "driven from Iraq," which would not actually be the case. Even if we did leave Iraq entirely, it would be in victory, not as a retreat.
Since our troops did in fact win the war, they ought to have a victory parade or national celebration upon returning. But I suspect that, as has been happening up until now, the troops will just drift home mostly unannounced and uncelebrated when their "tours" are over. Which is the very reason why we need to declare a Victory in Iraq Day.
If the Iraq War is over, why do we still occasionally hear reports of violence or casualties?
A common misperception of warfare is that when a war is "won," all fighting immediately stops, and that all members of the losing side passively lay down their arms and surrender. While that does happen on occasion, much more frequently the fighting continues as a low-level guerrilla war or insurgency for years afterwards by the diminishing die-hard loyalists of the losing side. Even wars with crushing conclusive victories and official declarations of surrender saw continued fighting long after those wars were officially "over." After World War II, which was won as conclusively as any war was ever won, some Germans refused to acknowledge defeat and continued to operate as guerrilla assassins and saboteurs. Anti-Semitic massacres in Europe continued into 1946 long after the Nazis had been defeated. In the Pacific Theater, Japanese "holdouts" on various islands kept up their battle posts against the Americans for years and years after Japan surrendered, some well into the 1970s. After the American Civil War ended in 1865, several pro-slavery guerrilla terrorist organizations and groups of individuals continued fighting against the Union for more than a decade. The same is true of many other wars. It especially happens in modern "police actions" (such as the Iraq War) which have no actual formal "Declaration of War" and thus no official moment of surrender or ending point. (Remember that the United States has not actually declared war on anyone since 1942.)
So, just because there are still occasional suicide bombings (which are becoming rarer and rarer with every passing month) and occasional sniper attacks or IED explosions (also becoming increasingly rare), that doesn't indicate that "the war is still being fought." It just means that there are a handful of die-hard extremists who refuse to give up -- which is exactly what happens after most wars. The last remaining pro-Saddam, pro-jihad or pro-Iran holdouts in Iraq are no different than any other post-war holdouts, and just because there are still a few left doesn't mean that the war is still happening, any more than the existence of the Japanese holdouts meant that WWII continued after 1945. Wars end, whether or not every single extremist or die-hard acknowledges it and lays down his weapons.
What counts as "being at war"?
Many other countries have ongoing issues with rebels, insurgents, guerrillas, or whatever you want to call them; simmering civil unrest. But we do not consider those countries to be at war, even though their situations are not really any different than, and are in some cases even worse than, the situation now in Iraq. Tell me: Do you consider Mexico to be at war? Yet they have an ongoing insurgency by Zapatistas in the state of Chiapas. The Philippines? They've been grappling with an Islamic insurgency for decades. Is Thailand at war? Millions of tourists don't seem to think so, but a violent rebellion by Muslim separatists in the southern provinces sometimes produces more casualties than there are in Iraq. India? They're not at war -- are they? Turkey, Sri Lanka, Colombia: The list could go on and on. In each case, the country in question is not considered to be "at war," yet it endures simmering insurgencies and/or terrorist violence that in some cases exceeds that now found in Iraq. If these countries are not considered by anyone to be "at war" -- which they are not -- then neither is Iraq.
But where's the official announcement?
The only reason that the war has not been declared "over" is that the media, which was generally opposed to the war and opposed to any of President Bush's policies, doesn't want to give him and his supporters the satisfaction of having been right. The media wants U.S. troops to return home, but only on condition that they do so with their tails between their legs in defeat -- not as victorious liberators, which would invalidate five years of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-war propaganda on the part of the left-leaning media. The Bush administration for its part has not declared victory for two probable reasons: first, because they fear that by so doing they would only increase the call by the media and liberal Democrats to "bring the troops home now"; and also by so doing they might invite some last-ditch spectacular terror attack by the few remaining jihadists in order to embarrass the administration. And the incoming Obama administration will certainly never announce victory, since Obama spent over a year campaigning for the Democratic primary as the anti-war candidate. So both sides refuse to say the war is over. Even though it is, in fact, over.
It is up to the American people to declare victory. Which is exactly what we are doing right now.
There never will be an "official" announcement from the government or the media, so you can stop waiting for it.
This is the official announcement.
(The short section below with the "virtual ticker-tape parade" was originally posted at the top of this essay for one day only on November 22, 2008 itself, to celebrate the actual event. Now that VI Day is over, I've kept the ticker-tape parade but moved it down here.)
 |
 |
On this November 22, 2008, join us in observing Victory in Iraq Day.
Let us honor the sacrifice, dedication and sheer determination of American, coalition and Iraqi troops who have brought freedom to the nation and people of Iraq.
Although our governments have chosen to not name any official day marking the end of this war, we the people have taken it upon ourselves to commemorate November 22, 2008 as the day of victory over the forces of tyranny, oppression and terror in Iraq.
Join fellow bloggers and other members of the public in this virtual ticker-tape parade for our brave troops, to celebrate their success, to remember the fallen, and to declare, in the words of President John F. Kennedy (RIP):
You may comment on VI Day here."Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Click on the following links to see a few of the best, most informative and most heartwarming Victory in Iraq Day posts from around the world:
Gateway Pundit
Confederate Yankee
Buuuuurrrring Hot
The Surfing Conservative
Stop the ACLU
Gegenkritik
Theodore's World
Public Secrets
The Wide Awake Cafe
Winefred's Well
Lighthouse on the Right
The Cool Blue Blog
Raja Rants
The Blog of Record
Fearless Dream
Macker's World
No Clever Pseudonym
Paul Ibrahim
Join the VI Day movement!
Do you agree with the concept behind VI Day? Then post a VI Day entry on your blog.
Once you've posted it, email me the link! And I will post a link back to your blog here on this page.
Make sure to make at least two different postings: Make one now to announce your support of VI Day and to spread the word ahead of time; and make another one on November 22 itself, to celebrate!
(Blogs of all political orientations are invited to join: Even if you're a progressive blogger and only want to announce an end to the war as a way to accelerate the homecoming home all troops, you are welcome to link to and/or mention VI Day too.)
One last note: If anyone is planning to hold a "meatspace" (i.e. real world) party or celebration to mark VI Day, send me the details and I will post them here as well.
Here is the official list of blogs that have so far agreed to mark VI Day on November 22, 2008:
Victory in Iraq Day: Participating Blogs
