While you are here…For the last 15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful, smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology, principles over party. Please consider a tax-deductible, year-end contribution  so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018!
The year 2017 saw America’s serial wars in Iraq ending with a whimper, not a bang. And in the oddest of ironies, it may be that Donald Trump, the fifth president to preside over U.S. military operations in Iraq, has more or less ended it, whether he had much to do with or not.
With Baghdad declaring victory over ISIS  (with U.S. military and Iranian assistance), U.S. officials say the number of troops remaining there could end up being far lower than the 5,500 there today. The lowest since the invasion in 2003.
Ironically, however, after a quarter-century of American conflict in Iraq, the U.S. seems to have less influence there than it ever did before.
How did this happen?
The Tweetable version: Our wars in Iraq—from Desert Storm in 1991 to the present—thrust the region into chaos while progressively erasing American dominance. Iran is picking up the pieces. As long as the U.S. insists on not opening diplomatic relations with Tehran, it will have no way short of war to exert any influence, a very weak position. Knowing this, other nation-states in the Middle East will move to diversify their international relationships (think Russia and China). Regional politics, not American interests, will drive events.
After five administrations and 26 years, the United States paid a high price for what will have to pass as a “victory.” Some 4,500 American dead, hundreds of thousands killed on the Iraqi side, and $7.9 trillion  taxpayer dollars spent.
Furthermore, the U.S. sacrificed  its long-term alliance with the Kurds and their dreams of a homeland to avoid a rift with Baghdad; the dead-end of the Kurdish independence referendum  vote this autumn became a handy date for historians to cite, but the Kurds were really done the day they were no longer needed to help us fight the Islamic State. Where once pundits  wondered how the U.S. would chose a side when the Turks and Kurds went to war both armed with American weapons, it appears the U.S. could care less about what either does over the disputed borderlands they both crave.change_me
The big winner , of course, is Iran. In 2017, Iran has no enemies on either major border (Afghanistan, to the east, thanks again to the United States, is unlikely to reconstitute as a national-level threat in anyone’s lifetime), and Iraq is now somewhere between a vassal state and a neutered puppet of Tehran.
As for Iran’s arch rivals in Saudi Arabia, again there is only good news for Iran. With the Sunnis in Iraq hanging on with the vitality of an abused shelter dog (and Iranian-supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad apparently to remain in power ), Saudi influence is on the wane. In the broader regional picture, unlike the Saudi monarchs, Iran’s leaders do not rule in fear of an Islamic revolution. They already had one. With its victory in Iraq, stake in Syria, and friends in Lebanon, Iran has pieced together a land corridor to the Mediterranean at a very low cost. If it was a stock, you’d want to buy Iran in 2018.
Going forward, Trump is unlikely to pull troops out of Iraq entirely, having seen the political price Obama paid for doing so in 2011. The troops will stay to block the worst of any ugly Shia reprisals against the Sunnis, and to referee among the many disparate groups (Peshmerga, Yazidi, Turkmen, the Orwellian-named/Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces, along with animated militias and factions of all flavors) who the U.S. armed willy-nilly to defeat ISIS.
This isn’t just abstract caution—Americans put a lot of weapons onto the battlefield over the last 15 years, and a reckoning is feared. The armed groups mostly set aside differences dating from Biblical times to fight ISIS, but with that behind them, about all they still have in common is mutual distrust . There is zero chance of any national cohesion and zero chance of any meaningful power-sharing by Baghdad. U.S. goals include keeping a lid on things so no one back home starts looking for someone to blame in the next election cycle, wondering what went wrong, and what we should be doing about it. How well the U.S. will do at keeping things in line, and the long term effects of so many disparate, heavily-armed groups rocketing around greater Mesopotamia, will need to be seen.
U.S. troops perma-stationed in Iraq will also be a handy bulwark against whatever happens next in Syria. In addition, Israel is likely to insist in so many ways that the United States garrison parts of western Iraq as a buffer against expanding Iranian power, and to keep Jordan from overreacting to increased Iranian influence.
Iran has already passively agreed to most of this. It has little to gain from a fight over some desert real estate that it would probably lose to the Americans anyway, when their prize is the rest of Iraq. And if any of this does presage some future U.S. conflict with an Iran that has gotten “too powerful,” then we shall have witnessed a true ironic tragedy and a historic waste of American blood and resources.
In the longer view, the Iraq wars will be seen as a turning point in the American Empire. They began in 1991 as a war for oil, the battle to keep the pipelines in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to the United States’ hungry mouth. They ended in 2017 when Persian Gulf oil is no longer a centerpiece of American foreign policy. Once oil no longer really mattered, Iraq no longer really mattered.
More significantly, the Iraq wars created the template for decades of conflict to come. Iraq was the first forever war. From oil, the reasons for being there shape-shifted effortlessly to containing Saddam via air power to removing weapons of mass destruction to freeing Iraq from an evil dictator to destroying al Qaeda to destroying the Islamic State to now, a buttress against Iran. Over the years the media dutifully informed the American people what the new rationalization was, reporting the changes as it might report the new trends in fashion—for fall, it’s shorter hemlines, no more al Qaeda, and anti-ISIS, ladies!
The Iraq wars changed the way we look at conflict. There would never again be a need for a formal declaration of war, such decisions now clearly were within the president’s whims and ordinations. He could ramp things up, or slow things down, as his mind, goals, temperament, and often domestic political needs, required. The media would play along, happily adopting neutral terms like “regime change” to replace naughty ones like “overthrow.” Americans were trained by movies and NFL halftime salutes to accept a steady but agreeably low rate of casualties on our side, heroes all, and be hardened to the point of uncaring about the millions  of souls taken as “collateral damage” from the other. Everyone we kill is a terrorist, the proof being that we killed them. Play a loud noise long enough and you stop hearing it.
The mistakes of the first forever war—Vietnam—were fixed: no draft, no high body counts for Americans, no combative media looking for atrocities, no anguish by the president over a dirty but necessary job, no clear statement of what victory looks like to muddle things. For all but the most special occasions the blather about democracy and freeing the oppressed was dropped.
More insidiously, killing became mechanical, nearly sterile from our point of view (remember the war porn images of missiles blasting through windows in Iraq war 1.0, the high tech magic of drone kills, video game death dispensed from thousands of miles away). Our atrocities—Abu Ghraib is the best known, but there are more—were ritualistically labeled the work of a few bad apples. Meanwhile, the other side’s atrocities were evil genius, fanaticism, campaigns of horror. How many YouTube beheading videos were Americans shown until we all agreed the president could fight ISIS forever?
Without the Iraq wars there would be no multi-generational war in Afghanistan, and no chance of one in Syria. The United States currently has military operations underway in Cameroon, Chad, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Uganda, and Yemen. Each one will do as the answer to one last question: Where will America fight its next forever war, the lessons of Iraq well-learned, the president ready?
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper’s War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell 
All of us at TAC wish you a Merry Christmas holiday and the best wishes for 2018. Our 501(c)(3) depends on your generosity to make the biggest impact possible. Please consider your tax deductible donation to our magazine, here. * Thank you.
*Contribute $250 or more before December 31 and receive an autographed copy of Robert Merry’s brand new book, President McKinley: Architect of a New Century!