Obama, Iraq and the use of the 'V' word
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µώµώ°δΜύ°Β±π²ϊ·ΙΎ±²υ±π for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
WASHINGTON: President Obama's speech announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq did contain the "V" word. Towards the end of his Oval Office address he noted, "in an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation".
This sentence followed one in which he noted 1.5m American troops had served in Iraq, experiencing the darkness of war, and had "helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace". So the president suggested that the success of Iraq's democratic transformation could provide victory in the long term.
When in 2008, the strategy pursued by General David Petraeus had already brought about a dramatic downturn in violence, I well remember officers at the headquarters in Baghdad telling me that their commander had "banned the V word". Indeed I heard Gen Petraeus himself talk about "pushing the champagne to the back of the fridge".
So it was curious last night to hear President Obama - formerly such a vociferous opponent of the war, and indeed of Gen Petraeus's surge strategy that finally delivered results - speak of victory. Of course his speech writers could argue that he did not use it in a way that claimed it for US forces or that mimicked the awful mistake of whoever wrote the "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung behind President Bush in May 2003.
What the speech did however was to use the word "victory" in a speech marking the end of US combat operations in such a way that his people would hear it, but at the same time would allow the White House truthfully to say "we never declared victory".
This reminds me how the Bush Administration argued it never accused Iraq of being behind the 9/11 attacks, while making speeches that contained reference to Saddam's support of terror or the Axis of Evil. And indeed, Bush's White House could argue that the president never said the mission in Iraq had been accomplished, even if the banner behind him did. It's a familiar political technique, in other words, to do with the power of suggestion.
Even if a president uses carefully chosen phrases, those around him may go further. In an interview published today, for example, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, talking about the positive effects of administration policies on Iraq, Iran and the Middle East peace process, said "victory begets victory, and success will be reinforcing".
It is true of course that as commander in chief, President Obama had to say positive things about the sacrifices made in Iraq. He had to leave his people feeling something good had come out of that violent maelstrom. In this sense his speech was genuinely statesmanlike in that it explicitly buried earlier partisan differences. Indeed, President Obama even managed to be generous about his predecessor, noting his commitment to America's armed forces and security.
The idea that the ultimate declaration of victory will depend upon the fortunes of Iraq's nascent democracy is an interesting one too. I'm not sure it would have been so alien to those who did take part in surrender ceremonies in any case. If, for example you'd asked Field Marshal Montgomery as he stepped from the tent on Luneburg Heath in 1945, having received a formal surrender, whether the real test of victory over Germany would be what kind of country it was in five or 10 years' time, I suspect he might well have agreed.
Today, in an era of non-state actors, insurgency, and asymmetric warfare the key difference is not in the declarations of victory. Indeed it might be argued that everybody now insists they've won - constantly - as part of information warfare.
However finely crafted the speech, even President Obama attempted that yesterday, by suggesting that the US had put the Iraqis on the path to victory. The real difference between today and 1945 is that nobody concedes defeat.
I'm Mark Urban, and I'm Newsnight's diplomatic and defence editor. I deal with war and peace around the world, so with apologies to Leo Tolstoy, that's what this blog will be called. No literary pretensions, just an attempt to drill down to the key issues - people around the world struggling for peace and security.
Comment number 1.
At 1st Sep 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:...whether the real test of victory over Germany would be what kind of country it was in five or 10 years' time,..
by that logic the uk has lost. Germany is an economic exporting powerhouse. the uk a bankrupt basket case.
is the world safer since iraq? are we spending more or less on internal security? what is the trend? up or down? when will the threat level ever get to 'normal'? In our lifetime?
when people start qualifying victories you know it isn't one. I remember an international rugby game between england and wales many years ago. England won but the welsh headlines were 'wales wins! [in tries]'. That is the saddo level this neocon war is at.
Lacking the courage they ask troops to show everyday the politicians can't admit people died for nothing from an original basis of lies.
whose evidence got a round of applause in the iraq inquiry? Tony Blair? the neocons from the FO? Nope.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 2nd Sep 2010, clusterbombunit wrote:A victory of sorts maybe, but very much of a Pyrrhic one, ignoring the butchers bill and the enormous cost, the standing of the US in the middle East and the more general Muslim world has been badly dented and has become a recruiting sergeant for Al Quaeda.
Whether the US lost or won, we most definately lost!, 179 dead, perhaps 2 thousand wounded, Β£10 billion spent, our Armed Forces badly weakened and to some extent humiliated, believed by many inculding the Pentagon to have been beaten by the insurgents.
we have little to look back on, the worst Geo/ Political policy disaster since Suez.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 2nd Sep 2010, stevie wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 17th Sep 2010, BluesBerry wrote:What Obama's speech did however was to use the word "victory" in a speech marking the end of US combat operations in such a way that his people would hear it, but at the same time would allow the White House truthfully to say "WE NEVER DECLARED VICTORY". It's good thing too.
I suspect this is due to the fact that Obama knew and Iraqis knew there was no victory to declare - not even a real withdrawal to declare.
The United Nations has rapped the United States for its failure to prosecute private security personnel over violations in Iraq, citing especially a case against two US firms which was dismissed after they claimed IMMUNITY. The UN working group on mercenaries said in a report that it "remains concerned at the continuing lack of transparency regarding the activities of private military security companies and at the failures of the civilian justice system to effectively prosecute those responsible for human rights violations. In addition, the group noted that companies often invoke IMMUNITY when prosecuted, as they were working on behalf of the US government.
Highlighted was the case brought against US firms CACI and L-3 Services - formerly known as Titan Corporation - over the alleged torture of detainees at Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
The experts called on Washington to "renounce the inclusion of immunity provisions" in agreements for such security firms. Don't hold your breath.
Despite the withdrawal of international forces from countries such as Iraq... the issue and role of private military and security firms HAS ESCALATED. An estimated 25,000 personnel in Afghanistan, while in Iraq the US State Department HAS INCREASED the number of private contractors to around 15,000. So I ask again: What withdrawal?
Is this withdrawal or victory?
Iraqis are outraged at payout for US victims of Saddam. $400 million will settle outstanding claims by US citizens caught up in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. So may I assume that the US will compensate all claims by Iraqis caught up in the United States' invasion of Iraq.
Is this victory?
Joint US-Iraq raids kill at least nine. Seven CIVILIANS, two Iraqi soldiers killed after joint American-Iraqi raid in city of Fallujah.
Is this victory?
US-backed deal aims to retain Maliki as Prime Minister for Iraq but curbs his powers.
Is this victory?
Iraqis to suffer from power shortfall for three more years
US General says Iraq will be unable to meet current electricity demand until 2013.
Are the Iraqis better off?
Is this Victory?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)