It is not that difficult to conclude that the war in Iraq has failed miserably against its stated purpose of making America safer. Most likely the war has made America less safe. Not only did we not find WMDs, the casus bellum, but also we created a breeding ground for groups whose presence and growth definitely does not help world stability.
At a higher level, so the argument goes, the war was not about WMDs, but about establishing a democratic, friendly, pro-Western state among a minefield of enemies, providing stability and an example for others to follow. For a moment there during the election in Iraq when the turnout was much higher than initially expected, I hoped that that higher order objective was achievable; reality however fell far short of our hopes.
Strategically, the war has increased security risk to the United States via at least three avenues.
The war has eroded the ideological leadership of the United States. For a large part of the 20th century the U.S. was the superpower not only because it produced half of the World's GDP and was militarily and technologically the strongest nation. Kids in the then Soviet bloc would crave to wear Levi's jeans. I remember in trips to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia back then that anything Western, and especially anything American, was desirable just because it was a symbol of a different, a "better" ideology. American music, American movies, the Western lifestyle in general, resonated with people around the World in a way that made the U.S. the unquestionable source of hope for the rest of us. On a transnational level, American agencies such as the CDC, the FDA, and so forth, had an instant credibility with whatever they came out with: If the FDA approved it, it must have been safe, if the CDC pronounced it, it must be fact.
Ideological leadership wanes with the decline of empires, and as such America is a victim of that predicament. The actions of the current administration have sped up that process of decline, and the war has been a serious contributor to this ever faster erosion of global credibility.
The smaller ideological equity of a leader, the harder it is to marshal followers to march on his own drumbeat, making it harder to coordinate security efforts around the globe. Pakistan is a good example of how such erosion has impeded achievement of U.S. security objectives in the past few years in that region.
Second means in which the war has increased risk to the U.S. is by galvanizing fanatic and overzealous enemies, giving them a cause to keep on using human life as a weapon to achieve their militant and extremist goals. The U.S.'s support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian strife has long been the philosophical underpin for these groups. But the Iraq war is further "proof" to these guys' eyes that the U.S. is the enemy that has to be defeated at all cost. The war provides "recruiting material" for these groups, not to mention the war zone provides a perfect training ground.
Finally, the war is making America less safe by distracting from the resources and power of the U.S. military, rendering it practically incapable to respond to other, much larger threats to American security -- we now know that Iraq is not (or at least was not) a serious threat to us.
This is an argument that should alarm not only anti-war activists, but also pro-war advocates. Many leaders have used war to achieve objectives for their countries, and war can be effective in doing that. Due to its magnitude, ineffectiveness, and ideological vacuity, this specific war however has done a disservice to the country by limiting its ability to intervene in other places where it needs to in order to solve crises. Military action and the threat of military action are huge negotiating chips with the international community, and the U.S. has at times used those to great advantage. This war, limiting so badly the country's ability to take military action, is strategically unacceptable. The mice will play, knowing that this cat is de-clawed. Critics to this argument will say that the U.S. still has a lot of military force on reserve so the mice should not be as complacent. But the fact that there is no ideological support for this war, among power brokers and the populace in the U.S., as well as among international allies, makes usage of such reserves highly unlikely.
The answer is no. The war hasn't made the country any safer. In fact, it has done the opposite. We need to think very carefully about how to get out of it, and we need to make that happen. We also need to do it in a way that will at least partially restore U.S. equity among its multiple stakeholders, at home and abroad.
As the world becomes more fragmented and yet more connected, the need for the emergence of a strong leader who brings everybody together increases. Someone has to, someone will, fill it. Let's try to make America be that leader, once again.