Centuries ago, Thomas Hobbes described his Leviathan’s approach to leadership: "Might makes right." Nicolo Machiavelli’s Prince similarly espoused: "The end justifies the means." These political philosophers continue to be relevant today. Witness the continuing conflagration in Iraq, this time between Shiites and Sunnis and the ongoing asymmetrical bombings between Israelis and Hamas Palestinians in Gaza. The former opens the possibility of a permanent partition of Iraq (despite our vision of a unified democracy after Saddam), and the latter is projected by watchers to result in a third Palestinian Intifada expanding the violent conflict to the West Bank and beyond.

"Might makes right" and "the end justifies the means" characterize our contemporary destructive clashes in the Middle East. But do these two assumptions genuinely lead to victory and peace? War is costly and has a tendency to escalate. By continuing to roll that dice in a mutual assured destruction scenario, combatants reach a point of diminishing returns. Generally, war is not a win-win, variable sum game.

Everyone loses in war, and studies have confirmed that the one who attacks first, loses. The Iraq War between 2003-2012 is a case in point. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, and was a preemptive strike against a sovereign country. George W. Bush’s executive branch-driven congressional resolution legitimized the "unilateral" forceful military strike against a nation-state that, at that time, had not attacked us. America played down the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspection process and by March 16, advised the UN inspectors to leave Iraq. Our "shock and awe" strategy embraced military force and aggression, in order to alter the balance of power drastically. People around the globe perceived the unprovoked invasion as asymmetrical. The United States, possessing enormous advantage and power, attacked a less-powerful Iraq.

In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly defined aggression as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereign, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, inconsistent with the charter of the United Nations."

The Iraq invasion outcome: First, America’s superior preemptive strike — Hobbes’ certainty that "might makes right" — failed. The "mission accomplished" mantra ended with our embarrassing retreat from Iraq in 2012. Second, our 2003 attack on Iraq eventually led to today’s Sunni/Shia violence that implicates neighboring countries as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, other Persian Gulf monarchies, radical groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Forward to June 19, 2014: President Barack Obama, alarmed by the return of hostilities, announced the sending of 300 "military advisers" back to Iraq (shades of Vietnam). Lasting peace continues to be elusive in the Middle East.

The "Costs of War Project" at Brown University placed America’s economic outlay for the Iraq War at $1.7 trillion, excluding benefits owed to war veterans and long-term spending on physical and psychological treatments. With those additions, the U.S. expenditure estimate is at $2.2 trillion. The price tag on physical lives between 2003-2012: U.S. troops killed in Iraq — 4,486; troops wounded— officially, 33,000 (estimated number 100,000). According to the Iraq Body Count Project, Iraqi deaths totaled 114,731.

To Machiavelli, the end justifies the means. Does it? Does a perceived good end result — regime change and the falsely perceived destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction —justify the elevation of force and brutality in civil societies, in the same category as the rule of law and peaceful discourse toward the achievement of a country’s goal? How can a legitimate and respectable result come out of procedures that are not legitimate and are disrespectful of the rule of law?

Echoes of the 1968 presidential elections saw the Vietnam War escalated, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinated and civil protests against the war intense. A film documentary on the elections astutely observed: "Courage to persist is the essence of leadership. Courage to stop, sometimes takes greater will." A wise reminder for our political leaders today.

Estrella Besinga Sybinsky is a retired political science professor who taught at, among other places, Butler University, Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus and University of Hawaii’s Windward campus. She is vice president for chapter development for the East-West Center Association.