On Wednesday, September 30th 2026, the last of the remaining US military personnel stationed in Iraq withdrew from the country, making it the official end of the US military’s operations there. After more than two decades of American involvement, thousands of deaths, and a 13-figure price tag, we must ask: Was the cost of the Iraq war justified by what it ultimately accomplished? The Human Cost The Iraq war represented a catastrophic toll on human life. Not only have US forces lost an estimated 4,432 in this conflict, there have also been 9.2 million Iraqis internally or externally displaced. The fatality count of Iraqi civilians and soldiers is at an estimated 300,000 but some estimates cite it higher at up to 601,027. These numbers are more than statistics. These were human beings that were family members, friends, and colleagues. These wrongful deaths and displacements are a testament to the negligence of the United States and Coalition forces in handling another country’s citizens and communities with care. There were also approximately 31,994 US soldiers wounded in the conflict, leaving thousands of soldiers with permanent injuries and without limbs. A great portion of the financial cost of the war is represented by the cost projections of their future medical care. The Finances Not only did the war extract a severe human toll, it also required a consequentially large amount of US taxpayer money to fund, at an estimated $2.89 trillion cost to the United States. Most do not comprehend the magnitude of this figure, especially as it relates to what the United States could have used this large sum on alternatively. That figure could’ve paid the estimated $220 billion in medical debt 13 times over and the $1.8 trillion held up in student loan debt. The United States government has seen these vast domestic problems and chosen to continue involvement in other Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Afghanistan, while American citizens struggle with their daily lives and expenses. And while these financial hardships occurred, companies like Haliburton and KBR were treated to no-bid oil contracts for Iraq’s then recently vacant and damaged oil fields. US Vice President, Dick Cheney, was formerly the CEO of Haliburton prior to the Vice Presidency, and these contracts prompted the start of an FBI investigation into the contracts. Political Instability and Long-Term Consequences Perhaps the most damning result of this massive expenditure of human life and capital are the ripple effects of overthrowing Iraq’s government and disbanding their military. Saddam Hussein was Iraq’s President from 1979 until US forces took control of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, which led to his subsequent capture by coalition forces in 2003. Saddam was falsely alleged to have connections to terror groups like Al-Qaeda. The previously acknowledged displaced people of Iraq included many people from skilled professions such as doctors, who fled in large numbers after war came to the country. The mass casualties, coupled with the shortage of medical personnel, devastated Iraq’s medical sector. This disparity still continues into the current decade. The power vacuum left by Saddam’s overthrow gave way for an Islamist government to proclaim control and gain power. This made it more difficult for both Iraqi civilians and US forces to operate in the country safely, as Iraq was practically turned into an anarchist state. The Verdict Can we truly say there was any benefit to such activities? In the eyes of most rational people, the answer is no. The United States has decimated the Middle East to an extent where nearly all other operating countries, with the exception of Israel, have in some way condemned US foreign policy and diplomacy over the years following involvement in Iraq. This conflict, coupled with the Afghanistan War, led to the United States becoming comfortable with a more long term presence in the Middle East and North Africa. This led to the beginning of US involvement in Syria in 2011, where US forces helped to destabilize and eventually overthrow another leader, Bashar Al-Assad in 2024. US forces also chose to intervene in Libya in 2011, overthrowing Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi in a violent bloodbath. The United States clearly is not richer, safer, or happier as a result of US tarnishment in Iraq. Subsequent involvement in other countries such as Syria and Libya, has only deepened an already exhausted US obligation to spending more American taxpayer dollars rebuilding countries that our forces destroy. To truly achieve a safer, more prosperous United States, the federal government must direct our best and absolute efforts towards our own domestic hardships and problems. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Theodore Maher
With only 28 days to go until the November midterms, President Donald Trump is hitting the campaign trail hard by visiting Republican strongholds. As Republicans fight to maintain their majorities in Congress, is Trump’s campaign strategy helping or hurting the Republican Party’s chances of retaining control? His strategy consists of energizing the Republican base. But his decision to focus heavily on Republican strongholds comes with a cost. On the campaign trail, Trump is visiting states where Republicans have traditionally performed well. The question remains whether increased Republican voter turnout will be enough to outweigh the potential benefit of reaching voters in the races that can determine the control of Congress. Trump backed Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts in his Nebraska campaign stop on Monday, Oct. 5. Ricketts is facing independent U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn in a closely watched Senate race, where no Democrat appears on the ballot. Trump’s decision to campaign for Ricketts shows his broader political strategy of focusing on Republican-leaning states. Nebraska’s Senate race provides a useful case study for why Trump’s strategy is worth examining. His appearance in Nebraska also underscores how closely the president has tied himself to Republican candidates during the final weeks of the campaign. Trump has also directly urged his supporters to mobilize for Ricketts. In a September 18 endorsement video, Trump called on his supporters to “knock doors, volunteer, and get out and vote” to help send Ricketts back to the Senate. Political scientist John Mark Hansen of the University of Chicago said Trump’s presence can have a measurable effect on Republican turnout. “What we’ve seen over the course of the past decade is, when Trump is on the ballot, you get better turnout if you’re a Republican,” Hansen said In his 32-day campaign blitz, he has already visited places like Texas, Alabama, and Oklahoma, all states that have traditionally been strongholds for Republicans. I believe Trump’s rallying could have both a potential benefit and a drawback. One way it could serve as a potential benefit for Republicans is voter turnout. Midterm elections typically have lower voter turnout than presidential elections, making voter turnout important. Trump’s rallies could motivate those voters who support the Republican Party but may be less likely to participate in a midterm election. Pew Research Center found that in the 2022 midterms, Republicans benefited more from differences in voter turnout than from voters changing their party preference. At the same time, Trump’s approval on economic issues is quite low, with 26% of Americans approving of his handling of the economy, and 17% of Americans approving of his handling of the cost of living according to a new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. However, the same strategy can have a potential drawback. While Trump remains a powerful figure among his supporters, the president’s overall national approval rating remains low at 32%. A Washington Post poll conducted in August showed that Republican House candidates held a 6-percentage-point advantage over Trump, with 44% of voters supporting the Republican candidate in their district, compared with 38% who approved of Trump’s job performance. Whether that strategy can translate into enough additional turnout to benefit candidates such as Ricketts remains a key question heading into November.
By Felipe Cisternas
Imagine a student sitting in a locked classroom while an emergency unfolds just outside the door. In that critical moment, one of the fastest ways to reach help isn’t a school intercom or a district protocol. It’s the phone in their backpack. It’s 2026, and whether we like it or not, smartphones have become fundamental to how we communicate. They are often our quickest way to reach help when something goes wrong. We save the people closest to us directly in our contacts, and emergency services are a few taps away. Society has evolved around the immediate connection phones provide, including the places where students spend most of their day. Why should students be denied access to a tool that has become vital to everyone else? On Sept. 30, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act of 2026 in the U.S. Senate, following a similar proposal introduced in the House last year. The proposal coincides with lawmakers across the country continuing to restrict students’ cell phone use. The proposal encourages states to adopt bell-to-bell restrictions on personal electronic devices in schools. The bill offers federal funding to help implement policies that could include phone lockers, lockboxes, and pouches. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association both back the bill, and its supporters are right about one thing: distraction is a real problem. One issue with this proposal is that it could strip students of a tool that may increase their safety. At a time when school shootings have become a disturbing part of American life, many believe schools should do everything possible to ensure a student can always contact emergency services when they need them most. Students cannot be expected to rely solely on the school for communication during an emergency. School personnel may be overwhelmed or facing the same danger themselves. Why remove that communication method when so many students already carry a device that can contact emergency services? In an emergency, having more ways to reach help matters. Multiple points of communication make contacting help faster, rather than relying on just one. Supporters will say pouches can be unlocked in an emergency. That is a fair response; it relies on the procedure working flawlessly in the middle of a panic. It is no surprise that smartphones are one of the leading sources of distraction for students. With social media playing such a prominent role in everyday life, the temptation to check a notification, doomscroll a feed, or chat with friends can easily interfere with learning. As time goes on, smartphones get “smarter,” and these distractions only become increasingly difficult to ignore. Teachers who want relief from that daily battle deserve to be taken seriously. However, as with most things, there is a middle ground between unrestricted smartphone use and taking students’ cell phone access away during the entire school day. Monitoring phone use in the classroom is a wiser approach than eliminating access throughout the school. It is one thing to require students to silence their phones and keep them away during class; it’s another to compromise their access to help simply because monitoring is more tedious than collecting phones at the door. That extra work is a real cost for teachers, and it should not be dismissed. But convenience should not outweigh safety. Taking the extra step to ensure students have their phones nearby, whether in their pockets or backpacks, could make a difference in an emergency. Schools can no longer be viewed as places where students’ safety is always guaranteed. That is the unfortunate reality. Students’ access to phones gives parents some peace of mind, knowing their children can still reach them immediately during an emergency. Indeed, school shootings existed long before smartphones became part of everyday life. The largest difference is that students today have advantages previous generations lacked. It would be unfair to parents and students to acknowledge the dangers of shootings that have always existed in schools, while removing a modern resource that could help them respond to those dangers faster than ever before. The reasoning behind this bill fails to justify its approach. If the goal is truly to support the growth and development of America’s youth, lawmakers must also weigh the potential consequences of removing smartphones from students’ reach for the entire school day. Eliminating access may solve one problem while creating another, one that could prove far more detrimental. Schools should absolutely address the distractions that come with easy access to smartphones. After all, ensuring students use class time well is their responsibility. But they should also accept the realities of the modern era and understand that the answer does not have to be unrestricted phone use, nor does it have to be complete elimination. Smartphones are not going anywhere, and neither are schools’ responsibilities to keep students both focused and safe. Instead of a blanket restriction, lawmakers should create policies that reflect the world students actually live in today, one where focus and safety are both treated as priorities. A modern problem calls for a solution that accounts for modern tools and for the safety they provide.
By Maya Balmanukyan
Follow Us