The Iraq War’s Legacy and the Global War on Terrorism Memorial
How not to memorialize the Iraq – As the nation reflects on military conflicts, a significant project has emerged that may redefine how we remember a pivotal chapter of American history. The Global War on Terrorism Memorial, unveiled earlier this month by its planners, presents a permanent tribute on the National Mall. While this initiative has garnered some recognition, it is overshadowed by another, more ambitious project: President Trump’s proposal for a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch in Washington, D.C. Both monuments aim to honor service members, yet the latter’s design has sparked intense debate, while the former’s narrative remains underexplored.
A Monument That Overshadows the Iraq War
The Global War on Terrorism Memorial, a monument meant to commemorate U.S. troops who fought in the post-9/11 era, is currently being finalized. Congress greenlit the project in 2017 and approved its location in 2021. At first glance, the design appears solemn and reflective, drawing inspiration from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s abstract approach. However, its name has drawn scrutiny for its potential to blur the lines between different conflicts and obscure the unique circumstances of the Iraq War.
More than 7,000 American service members lost their lives in the wars following 9/11. The memorial’s focus on the Global War on Terrorism, a concept popularized by President George W. Bush, means that the majority of those honored are from the Iraq War, which spanned from 2003 to 2011. While the monument may serve a purpose in uniting families of the fallen, its title risks embedding the justification for the Iraq War into a broader, more enduring narrative of global conflict.
The Rationale Behind the “War on Terrorism”
President Bush’s administration introduced the term “Global War on Terrorism” shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, framing the conflict as a continuous battle against a widespread threat. This concept gained traction quickly, with many Americans interpreting the invasion of Afghanistan as a direct response to terrorism. The Taliban, which had harbored Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader responsible for the attacks, was seen as an immediate target. Yet, the transition to Iraq in 2002 was less clear. The Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein’s regime was collaborating with al-Qaida, a narrative that many believed, even though the evidence was tenuous.
“The only victor” of the Iraq War, according to an Army study, was Iran, which benefited from the chaos in the Middle East. This observation highlights the less-discussed consequences of the conflict. While the initial goal was to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and prevent a potential attack, the war instead created new challenges. The rise of ISIS, which emerged in the aftermath of the invasion, is a direct result of the instability that followed. The monument’s name, however, may perpetuate the belief that this conflict was a necessary step in the broader fight against terrorism.
False Premises and Unintended Consequences
The Iraq War was justified on the premise that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Qaida. This connection, however, was never conclusively proven. The administration relied on intelligence from a defector codenamed “Curveball,” whose claims about Iraq’s WMDs were later found to be unreliable. Despite this, a majority of the American public supported the war, with early polls showing that nearly half believed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This belief, though based on incomplete information, helped legitimize the conflict.
The war’s impact extended far beyond the initial justification. It resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 American service members and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The conflict also weakened U.S. alliances and destabilized the region, creating fertile ground for extremist groups. These outcomes challenge the narrative that the war was a defensive measure against terrorism. Instead, it became an example of how wars can be launched on flawed assumptions, with lasting consequences for both the U.S. and Iraq.
Memorials and the Power of Language
Memorials are not just physical structures—they are stories. The Global War on Terrorism Memorial, named by the Bush administration, carries the weight of that controversial era. By using the term “Global War on Terrorism,” the monument risks immortalizing the justification for Iraq as a central part of the nation’s history. This framing, while convenient, may cloud the reality that the Iraq War was not a direct response to terrorism but a geopolitical decision based on incomplete intelligence.
“The only victor” of the war was Iran. — Army study
Those who served in Iraq, like all soldiers, deserve recognition for their sacrifices. Yet, the memorial should not gloss over the mistakes that led to their deaths. By presenting the Iraq War as a justified act of self-defense, the monument may unintentionally encourage future conflicts under similar banners. It could become a symbol of how wars are often sold with narratives that prioritize unity over scrutiny.
A Call for Honesty in Commemoration
Gregory Brazeal, a former Army Reserve major and author of The Hero and the Victim: Narratives of Criminality in Iraq War Fiction, argues that the memorial’s name is deceptive. It honors the Iraq War but frames it within the broader context of a “Global War on Terrorism,” a term that was used to justify the invasion. This approach may lead Americans to forget that the war’s original rationale was based on claims that later proved false. The monument’s success as a tribute depends on its ability to balance commemoration with historical accuracy.
The Iraq War, though part of the broader conflict against terrorism, was unique in its scale and impact. It led to the creation of new threats, including the rise of ISIS, and exposed the vulnerabilities of relying on a single justification for prolonged military engagement. The Global War on Terrorism Memorial, while thoughtful in its design, has the potential to enshrine these mistakes. Its name, however, serves as a reminder of the narratives that shaped the war and continue to influence how it is remembered.
As the monument takes shape, it is crucial to consider its role in shaping public memory. It should not only honor those who died in the Iraq War but also acknowledge the broader implications of the conflict. A memorial that accurately reflects the war’s complexities can serve as a powerful tool for reflection, ensuring that the sacrifices of service members are paired with an understanding of the decisions that led to their deaths. Otherwise, it risks becoming a symbol of the very illusions that make future wars more likely.
In the end, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial is more than a tribute to those who served—it is a testament to how language and symbolism can shape our perception of history. By enshrining the Iraq War within a global framework, it may inadvertently elevate the administration’s original arguments, even as those arguments have been discredited. The challenge now is to ensure that the monument becomes a space for truth, not just for remembrance.
