His domestic vision aside, last night President Barack Obama offered an embarrassingly whitewashed history and strategic interpretation of the Iraq war.  The feel-good simplifications serve only to re-enforce an uncritical attitude towards our military, how it is employed, and moreover, helps obscure its obvious limitations in nation building endeavors.

“Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought - and several thousand gave their lives.  We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.”

Reducing a complicated, nearly decade long war with this simple utterance is problematic to say the least. The first claim, that the United States has been “safer,” as a result of the war is simply laughable. It ignores the lack of any threat the nation posed prior to our invasion; and it sidesteps the geopolitical reality of a new, Shiite majority bent on consolidating its power, residing along the border of an increasingly menacing Iran.

The whole enterprise vaguely resembles a fireman deliberately setting a poorly constructed building ablaze, requiring massive expenditure to extinguish it, and upon viewing the partially charred remains, exuberantly declares a job well done. While the building most likely deserved attention, the manner in which it was dealt with, coupled with an irreverent and hasty decision making process, few would argue was impractical; and furthermore, only served to compound the problems already faced by that building’s occupants.

The second assertion, that as a result of the Iraq war, we have become “more respected” throughout the world, is also difficult to sustain. First off, the language is extremely vague. What exactly does the President mean? Are we more respected because we “ended” the war? More respected because our military might has proven adaptable and unquestionably dominant? Or is he talking in the grander sense, that our nation has regained the trust of the international community since reorienting U.S. foreign policy away from the pre-emptive doctrine of war ushered in by his predecessor?

It is perhaps purposefully vague. Casting these questions aside, I would insist, nonetheless, as George Kennan did, that the means used to achieve one’s goals, no matter how lofty, are the true test of one’s character. On this note, I believe our nation has been found wanting. Whether it is the flouting of international law to contravene the definition of torture, the abuse of detainees in our custody, the Kafka-esque system of justice we inaugurated on U.S. owned soil, the increasing surveillance of U.S. citizens by local and national agencies, or the reprehensible individual acts of our soldiers – we have not lived up to our best traditions. How any nation can gain respect in such a manner eludes me.

Lastly, there is a bigger picture item I’d like to touch upon. In terms of the framing of the speech, it is important to acknowledge that it was bookended by an appeal to the supposed self-less virtues of the U.S. Armed Forces. The President was imploring our nation to act more like the military: unified and goal driven. Firstly, I am uncomfortable with the framing of a State of the Union speech around an elevation of martial virtues and military service in a society that both are supposedly subordinate to. But more importantly, as with Iraq, the President again offers a characterization of military relations (both civil-military, and inter-service) that is at odds with reality. It was not so long ago, that the self-absorbed “rock star” general, Stanley McChrystal was sacked for, among other things, his inability (that’s being generous) to work with, or even respect at bare minimum, his civilian superiors. Obama’s desire for our nation’s political order to function like a well lubricated military machine also ignores the substantial military infighting that took place around the firing of McChrystal’s predecessor, the four-star general, David McKiernan, which in its swiftness and apparent inessential nature was described by one Pentagon official as, “a violent act.” If anything, there seems to be a comparable acrimony between civilians and the military, and within the military itself, as there is between Mitch McConnell and President Obama.

While perhaps overstated, the President’s rapturous endorsement of our military as the embodiment of perfection – a script every president since the inauguration of the All-Volunteer Force has read from – results only in their further estrangement from our society. It also increasingly makes them more insulated from the criticism of regular citizens, who have largely abandoned any control — or desire to engage in a dialogue — over our foreign or military policy.

These myths persist because we allow them, because we do not speak up forcibly enough against them. We are safer because of Iraq? We are a more respected world power because of Iraq? If you buy that, then there’s a new war coming in the region that you are just going to love!