Did we really ‘win’ in Iraq? Tom doesn’t think so — and neither does General Dubik
The other day a couple of commenters discussing innovation in the military mentioned one change (fwiw, the company-level intelligence cell) as a big reason why "we won in Iraq." Hmm, I thought: Did we actually win that war? I am not sure. It doesn’t feel like it. Yes, we got out with our shirts on. ...
The other day a couple of commenters discussing innovation in the military mentioned one change (fwiw, the company-level intelligence cell) as a big reason why "we won in Iraq."
The other day a couple of commenters discussing innovation in the military mentioned one change (fwiw, the company-level intelligence cell) as a big reason why "we won in Iraq."
Hmm, I thought: Did we actually win that war? I am not sure. It doesn’t feel like it. Yes, we got out with our shirts on. But win?
I thought about this again when I read this thoughtful comment by Lt. Gen. James Dubik in the May issue of ARMY magazine:
America is confusing "withdrawing from a war" with "ending a war." The two are very different. A war ends when strategic objectives are met or an enemy is defeated and recognizes its defeat. In Iraq, the war continues — albeit at a level that the Iraqi security forces are, so far, able to handle and the Iraqi government can manage.
More from Foreign Policy

A New Multilateralism
How the United States can rejuvenate the global institutions it created.

America Prepares for a Pacific War With China It Doesn’t Want
Embedded with U.S. forces in the Pacific, I saw the dilemmas of deterrence firsthand.

The Endless Frustration of Chinese Diplomacy
Beijing’s representatives are always scared they could be the next to vanish.

The End of America’s Middle East
The region’s four major countries have all forfeited Washington’s trust.