Is It Important When American Troops Come Home?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Economy, Iraq, McCain, Military, Money, Video
I think yes. McCain thinks no.
First, his side…
Now, mine…
Once again it appears that McCain is trying to reframe the goal of the surge by saying it’s a success because fewer troops are getting killed. And while he’s correct that casualty rates are dropping, our men and women are still dying at an average of 1 every 1.5 days. More still are getting seriously wounded or injured. And let’s not even get into the military’s massive PTSD problem.
As I and many have said in the past, reducing violence in Iraq was only meant to be a strategy to enable the goal of political progress…which hasn’t happened and is presently in limbo. How much longer will we wait until the Iraqis get their act together? McCain seems to suggest as long as it takes, but there’s no evidence to suggest that continuing to stay will make things any better or motivate Iraqi politicos to move faster to secure their own country and work towards a stable democracy.
Another thing, McCain is attempting to draw parallels to other locales we’ve occupied as the model for Iraq. However, his argument just doesn’t square. America wasn’t pouring hundreds of billions into South Korea, Japan or Germany, nor were we experiencing post-war casualties anywhere close to rate in Iraq. And I know that McCain is talking about getting to a similar reality in Iraq, but there are no guarantees of that.
So this leads me to the reasons why it’s important to know when our troops are coming home…
First, there are the fiscal costs of maintaining such large troop levels in Iraq. This excursion into the Middle East has been extremely costly, and since we didn’t have the money to conduct it in the first place, our rampant borrowing from foreign governments to fund it has been responsible for helping drive down the value of the dollar and ultimately resulting in higher prices for consumers stateside.
Second, there has been no discernible safety gains from our presence in Iraq as the number of terrorists and terrorist acts has actually increased since 9/11. Many poo-poo this stat, but if we’re fighting a “War on Terrorism”, more of it means we’re losing. Honestly, I wish we’d reframe the entire “war” thing, but I’m just using what Bush and McCain are giving us.
Third, because our resources have been diverted to Iraq, our government has been limited in their capacity to invest in alternative energy sources…which nearly everybody acknowledges as being THE key to strangling terrorism once and for all. Oil money funds terrorism. No getting around it. Thankfully, McCain has an alternative energy plan, but how will he pay for it if we’re continuing to divert billions to Iraq? And what’s more, how much quicker would we realize energy independence with those billions being diverted away from Iraq and into alternative energy development? I think the smart money would be on “a lot quicker.”
What’s the conclusion? Well, McCain’s latest statement could really hurt him because it plays right back into that “100 years” comment he flippantly made early in the campaign. Yes, lowering the troop casualty rate is important and nobody will deny that, but there are other things to consider and McCain’s simplistic view of what “success” means in Iraq is almost bound to draw intense scrutiny. Not only from those who heard him talk recently about a possible 2013 timetable, but also from those whose chief concern is America’s economic future.
Long story short, the quicker we can get our troops home, the quicker we can start to refocus our efforts on what really matters: American prosperity.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Economy, Iraq, McCain, Military, Money, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I’m curious what stats you’re thinking of when you say “fewer terrorists and terrorist acts”. I certainly believe that, but it’s a stat that begs to be defined.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Does that mean it is guaranteed that Iraq will not become a similar situation where all U.S. troops are in a support role and do not perform security operations? Why not take a chance!
I would argue that the Middle-east is a strategically important region right now, more so than those other theaters that McCain mentions, like Japan or Germany, not-to-mention the dozens of air-force bases around the world. Perhaps you should downsize those first? Remember, If it wasn’t for the regime change in Iraq, then we would still have the massive Tawfik air base in Saudi Arabia still in operation, where thousands of troops were stationed and daily sorties were flown to enforce the no-fly zone. How do you know that old Saudi base was not as expensive?
Really? Even the New York times reports that Al-qaeda is crippled in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we have shown gains in other regions around the world against Islamic terrorism, such as South Asia. Also, if you count the attacks on Iraqi civilians as part of the Iraq war itself, then terrorism has actually decreased elsewhere throughout the world by 40% since 2001. Blame Bush?
Well, come on. The reason why we rely on foreign oil is because congress always blocks access to our own. Besides, its the Saudi air-base, pick-your-poison argument again.
The primary purpose of the government is to protect its citizens from those who would do us harm, so that we can build prosperity on our own. You know how I have always argued that when countries like Iraq use their resources to fight the terrorists in their midst rather than support them or look away, then we are safer in the long run to pursue prosperity unfettered. We don’t have to waste our resources policing the world after terrorist attacks, or sealing off our homeland as the first line of defense, or survelling our citizens as our last line of defense, not to mention avoiding terrorist attacks themselves which are the worst kind of blow to our American way of life, economic or otherwise. It is an investment in security that pays off when we inevitably prosper in the absence of terrorism.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Well, in all fairness, other occupations and rebuilding efforts were handled by far more massive dedications of troops than is the case in Iraq. There simply arent enough soldiers to go around.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I didn’t say that. I said there have been more post 9/11. Search the internet. It’s widely known.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:36 am
To your third point, it might be more sustainable if we were investing treasure (rather than IOUs), as well as blood, in the effort. As it stands, it’s a wonder that we managed to keep it going as long as we did before the currency started going south.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
As a percentage of GDP, only the first gulf war was a less expensive American war, going all the way back to the revolution. The reason why the dollar is dropping is not necessarily government spending, because the amount of spending has increased at nearly the same rate as our total wealth as a nation increases. Our currency value is dropping relative to other countries basically because developing countries are developing at an unprecedented rate, and their currencies can buy more stuff. Also, the EU is still consolidating, and the Euro absorbs more value as it replaces the outdated currencies of new EU nations.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Jimmy, our war spending has effected the value of the dollar. Obviously other factors are involved, but you don’t go borrowing the better part of a trillion dollars from foreign interests and not have it effect your currency.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am
My bad, I meant to say “more” not “fewer”. But still, what counts as a “terrorist act”. One of the annoying things about the “war on terror” is that “terror” is very ill-defined. e.g. do suicide bombings and IED’s in iraq count?