Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Iraq War veteran Geoffrey Millard, a member and spokesperson for Iraq Veterans Against the War, walks down a row of boots during the 'Eyes Wide Open: The Human Cost of War' exhibition on the National Mall May 12, 2006 in Washington, DC. Millard spent 13 months in Iraq. 'We could fill up this whole mall with boots and the Bush Administration wouldn't care,' Millard said. 'But the American people care. This exhibit, it's a light in the darkness.' The exhibition includes a pair of boots for every one of the 2433 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and a number of shoes symbolizing the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have died inf the war since 2003. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Is a ‘Global War on Terrorism Memorial’ an Appropriate Tribute?

Andrew Bacevich

 by the Boston Globe

The proposal for a Global War on Terrorism Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, to honor the country’s post-9/11 war dead, described in Sunday’s Globe, may seem like a no-brainer. It is, in fact, premature. Before proceeding further, Americans would do well to reflect further on exactly what they propose to memorialize.

Existing federal legislation prohibits installing a war memorial on the Mall until at least 10 years after the fighting has ended. Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts is cosponsoring a bill that will waive that requirement. On the surface, the argument in favor of such a waiver is compelling. Given the open-ended nature of the conflict in which US forces are presently engaged, to wait for it to end before honoring the fallen is in effect to postpone that honor indefinitely. In effect, “forever war” may well mean “soon forgotten.”

Yet Moulton’s proposed legislation skips past larger issues that demand prior resolution. Two in particular stand out: the war’s actual purpose and when exactly it began.

“Global War on Terrorism” has never accurately described the enterprise upon which the United States embarked in the wake of 9/11. The formulation is at best misleading where not simply fraudulent. In practice, US opposition to terrorism is selective rather than global. When it comes to regimes that it deems useful for other reasons — Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for example — Washington routinely turns a blind eye to their overt promotion of terrorism. Indeed, on occasion, the United States itself supports groups that engage in terrorist activities, albeit while rebranding those groups as “freedom fighters.”

Furthermore — and crucially — terrorism per se was all but irrelevant to the George W. Bush administration’s decision to initiate what became the largest and most costly of our post-9/11 military campaigns, the Iraq War of 2003-2011. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not allies. They were sworn enemies. Rather than reducing terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom fostered it. That may not have been the intention. It was undeniably the result.

How do you memorialize the fallen in a war without end?

Efforts to recognize Americans killed in the war on terror are bumping into a law against building a memorial on the National Mall until after a war is over.

To depict the 2003 invasion of Iraq as part of a larger project undertaken to combat terrorism, therefore, is nothing short of Orwellian. Sustaining that fiction serves only to allow proponents of that disastrous conflict to evade accountability.

We can more usefully characterize the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a continuation of a prior Iraq War that the United States had seemingly won in 1991. In short, the aim in 2003 was to finish unfinished business. That unfinished business had next to no connection to the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11.

Yet to acknowledge the linkage between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom is to highlight this important fact: Well before the events of September 2001, US troops were already serving, fighting, and sometimes dying in the Middle East. In other words, to identify 9/11 as the date when hostilities began is arbitrary, misleading, and ultimately unhelpful.

It is worth noting that today, 26 years after the fact, no memorial honoring US troops lost during Operation Desert Storm exists in our nation’s capital. Should they not be included in the memorial that Moulton proposes? I see no reason why they should not.

And why stop there? Why not include the Marines killed by a suicide bomber in Beirut back in 1983? Were not these 241 “peacekeepers” de facto combatants confronting adversaries that US officials classified as terrorists?

In sum, the problem with a proposed Global War on Terrorism Memorial in remembrance of US service members killed since 9/11 is twofold. First, fighting terrorism comes nowhere close to describing the actual purpose of US military endeavors in the Middle East since 9/11. If a war against terrorism, it has also been a war for oil and regional dominion. It has been a 21st-century equivalent of a war for empire.

Second, to the extent that the US can be said to be fighting (some) terrorist entities (some of the time), that fight commenced a full two decades prior to September 2001. The events of 9/11 merely called the attention of the American people to an ongoing military project in the Middle East that had previously escaped their notice.

That the nation has a solemn obligation to honor the sacrifices of those who lost their lives in military campaigns throughout the Islamic world is no doubt the case. Yet remembrance should begin with a truthful accounting of the events that led to those sacrifices. To base remembrance on convenient half-truths or willful self-deception would be to dishonor the dead.

The proper moment for constructing some suitably somber edifice out of granite and marble will present itself in due course. For now, the imperative is to reckon with what has occurred and continues to occur. That means coming to a full understanding of why these young men and women died. In that regard, we still have a long way to go.

© 2021 Boston Globe
Andrew Bacevich

Andrew Bacevich

Andrew J. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. Bacevich is the author of "America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History" (2017). He is also editor of the book, "The Short American Century" (2012), and author of several others, including:  "Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country" (2014, American Empire Project); "Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War" (2011),  "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War" (2013), "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" (2009, American Empire Project), and "The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II" (2009).

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

ACLU Demands 'Truly Systemic Overhaul' of US Civilian Harm Policies

"While a serious Defense Department focus on civilian harm is long overdue and welcome, it's unclear that this directive will be enough," says director of the legal group's National Security Project.

Jessica Corbett ·

'This Is Not Over': Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Youth Climate Case

"With the state continuing to undermine their health, safety, and futures," said the plaintiffs' lead counsel, "we will evaluate our next steps and will continue to fight for climate justice."

Jessica Corbett ·

Analysis Finds 'Staggering' Rise in Voter Suppression After GOP Restrictions in Georgia

"This is why we are fighting this new law in court," said one voting rights advocate.

Brett Wilkins ·

'Egregious': Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Mail-In Voting Law

The ruling was stayed pending an appeal to the state's Supreme Court and as one voting advocate put it: "The fight's not over yet, folks."

Julia Conley ·

Big Win for Open Internet as Court Upholds California Net Neutrality Law

One legal advocate called the Ninth Circuit's opinion "a great decision and a major victory for internet users in California and nationwide."

Kenny Stancil ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo