The United States has ended its fighting in Iraq after nearly two decades, but the departure received little attention, according to Responsible Statecraft. The publication says the quiet surrounding the end recalls the U.S. exit from Afghanistan a few years earlier, and reflects another loss for those in Washington who believe military power can solve problems around the world.

Responsible Statecraft describes both wars as examples of American hubris: conflicts it calls strategically incoherent, fought at the cost of American lives and too many Iraqi and Afghan lives. It argues that the country has not learned from those experiences, pointing to President Donald Trump’s remarks at the United Nations the week before U.S. forces finally vacated Iraq.

Trump boasted about exploiting Venezuela for oil and said, “to the victor goes the spoils.” The publication presents the comment as an unusually direct expression of how U.S. dominance of the global order works, even though Washington typically takes pains to conceal that reality at the United Nations. It names Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and Somalia among the places where the United States is extending its reach.

That tension between U.S. power and how Americans understand it is the subject of Daniel Bessner’s latest book, “Imperialist Realism.” Responsible Statecraft discussed the book with Bessner on its latest episode of the Always at War podcast. The book draws on Mark Fisher’s earlier “Capitalist Realism,” which uses cultural touchstones to show how deeply capitalism is embedded in society. Bessner applies a similar idea to imperialism, arguing that it shapes the world, people’s experiences and culture.

Bessner describes three main elements of “Imperialist Realism”: cynicism, missionism and tragic guilt. Cynicism means that few people actually believe the United States effectively “spreads democracy.” Missionism is the belief that, despite that scepticism, Americans must keep acting. Tragic guilt is the feeling produced by the tension between those positions.

Former secretary of state Antony Blinken is one example Bessner points to. During his tenure, Blinken repeatedly described a solemn U.S. duty to lead the world, saying the country needed to “put our hand on the rudder of history and chart a path forward.” He also warned that “in the absence of us” leading, “someone else will do it.”

Bessner suggests Blinken recognizes that the United States “isn't necessarily spreading its ideals. It's really acting in the realm of power politics and he feels bad about that.” The publication presents that mixture of continued calls for leadership and discomfort about the motives behind it as tragic guilt in action.

The idea also appears in popular culture, Bessner argues. Responsible Statecraft points to the Marvel Cinematic Universe film “Captain America: Civil War,” in which superheroes split over whether they will accept regulation. When the heroes who reject regulation go on the lam, the pro-regulation team lets them escape. The publication interprets that moment as suggesting that people sometimes need to exist outside the law, calling it an example of imperialist realism.

Changing a reality in which the United States is always at war would require substantial effort, the article says. Bessner argues that meaningfully reforming the national security state would be an enormous undertaking, requiring extraordinary expenditures of political capital, credibility and courage. Responsible Statecraft concludes that if changing U.S. foreign policy depends on a brave, selfless politician, it is unsurprising that Americans believe things will never change.

Based on reporting by Responsible Statecraft.