Hurricane Katrina and its near-catastrophic aftermath, which bids fair to be compounded by Rita, might be reason enough, given the resources that will be used (whether they are really required on the federal level is another matter, but President Bush is approaching this disaster like the big-government Republican he has turned out to be) to restore New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast. The hurricane also brought home the obvious lesson that when U.S. troops down to the National Guard level are committed overseas fewer resources are available for domestic disasters. But the most important reasons to start bringing U.S. troops home sooner rather than later have to do with the situation in Iraq more than the situation here at home.
Simply stated, despite some countervailing evidence and arguments to the contrary, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, besides being inordinately expensive, almost certainly does more to destabilize that country than it does to stabilize it. "Stay the course" is not a strategy to defeat or even neutralize the persistent insurgency/guerrilla war/whatever that U.S. and Iraqi forces face. It is the stance of stubbornness, of refusal to reconsider a path even when it is becoming faint and the countryside around it looks more and more like a dangerous wilderness.
Guerrilla wars are notoriously difficult for the side playing defense to win; some would even argue that almost no counterguerrilla efforts really succeeded in the 20th century. The "flypaper" argument – better to attract them to a country halfway around the world and kill them there rather than face them at home – is not only frightfully suspect morally, but Madrid, London, and other places suggest it doesn’t work. The Iraq war, in fact, may well be serving as a training ground for jihadists whose real goal is to disrupt the Western countries where they have lived, perhaps were born.
Some jihadists or wannabes might flock to Iraq just to test themselves against homegrown Iraqi soldiers fighting for whatever governmental structure emerges from the current constitutional conundrum. But it is more likely that more of them will come for the chance to fight and kill Americans. Thus the presence of U.S. troops is an important recruiting tool for the insurgency.
These are just a few of the reasons it would be prudent to start getting U.S. troops out of Iraq – or at least to announce their imminent withdrawal, which could be done without offending the prejudice against something that could be interpreted as a timetable, which is apparently a totemic no-no for the president and his loyal henchpeople – before the end of the year.
The Money Pit
Let’s take what may be the least important reason first, although it should be of significance to fiscal conservatives. One is entitled to wonder if there any such specimens remaining in the U.S. political zoo, but in fact an increasing number of them are becoming impatient with the big-spending ways of the Bush administration.
A study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a research and advocacy group generally considered to be on the left side of things (and insofar as left-right mean that much in American politics these days probably justly so), has tried to quantify the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
According to "The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops," the Iraq war, in the words of IPS research fellow Erik Leaver, is "the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years." According to Leaver (in an interview with longtime drug-law-reform and recently Nader operative Kevin B. Zeese), "Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005, while the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation."
There have been four spending bills appropriated for Iraq totaling $204.4 billion. Congress is currently working on a $45.3 billion "bridge fund" appropriation and is likely to pass another $30 billion package next spring.
All this is bound to have an impact on the federal deficit in years to come, unless economic growth occurs on a scale that seems unlikely given petroleum prices. One should be wary of long-term projections, but it is the case that the Congressional Budget Office estimated in August that continuing the Iraqi and Afghan wars (elections or not, the U.S. has ongoing expenses in Afghanistan) would almost double the projected federal deficit over the next 10 years.
One might feel less uncomfortable if there were a case that some of this money is trickling down to Iraqis, thus helping to lay the basis for a stronger Iraqi economy in the future. But most of it is spent on military operations and equipment and flows into U.S. rather than Iraqi hands. Unemployment in Iraq rages from 20 to 60 percent depending on the region. About half of those who are employed work for the government, which is almost impossible to sustain, especially since its funding is shaky. Given the insurgency, which is to some extent fueled by high unemployment, the U.S. hasn’t even been able to spend all of the $18.4 billion slated for reconstruction, which despite inevitable inefficiencies could have created more employment opportunities for young Iraqis.
Insurgency Recruiting
Perhaps a more important reason it would be prudent to start bringing Americans home, however, is the strong likelihood that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is a magnet for insurgents and would-be terrorists seeking not only to kill Americans but to get experience and training in insurgency techniques. In July of this year, experts at the London think tank Chatham House wrote that the Iraq war
"[G]ave a boost to the al-Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment, and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal target and training area for al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government [in Afghanistan] and to bring bin Laden to justice."
According to Erik Leaver of IPS, "new investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank found that the majority of foreign fighters are not former terrorists and instead become radicalized by the war itself – a troubling statistic given that according to the Bush administration, one major goal of this war is to stem future terrorism." Instead of stemming terrorism, the U.S. presence in Iraq may well be sowing the seeds of future terrorist attacks as would-be jihadists are radicalized and "blooded" in real-life action.
The Chatham House assessment came before Katrina made it clear that some of the people and equipment deployed in Iraq could have been useful at home.
Providing Cover
Even given all this, it will be difficult for the Bush administration to change course in Iraq – although as is not uncommon in such cases it seems to be the military people, or at least some of them, who want to keep speculation about troop withdrawals alive. Military leaders know that it is their troops who do the fighting and dying when political leaders get them stuck in a situation that might turn out to be untenable.
Perhaps the best hope for early withdrawal is for the current constitutional process to seem to be, if not wildly successful, at least successful enough that U.S. leaders can say they are starting to achieve the goal of establishing a relatively democratic and potentially stable government in Iraq. Thus the upcoming referendum, scheduled for Oct. 15, on a draft constitution that has some problems but is at least a document with some support, may be a key event.
If the vote on the constitution is favorable and it appears that elections scheduled for January can take place without too much disruption, the administration might begin to have some of the cover it needs to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. It is just possible that, especially in the wake of Katrina and the need to beef up both competence and morale among those charged with homeland security duties, this could be an attractive option. The important thing for the administration – assuming it doesn’t plan to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, which is not a sure thing at this point – is to be able to say with some degree of credibility that there has been success rather than failure in Iraq, that we are leaving with our heads high rather than "cutting and running."
It might take some spinning to sell this, but as I wrote last week, there are some hopeful signs. And it is likely that the American people would rather believe the story that the Americans have done some good in Iraq by beginning a process that could lead to something resembling democracy than that the effort has been a complete failure and the U.S. is returning with its tail between its legs.
Thus what the Iraqis may do at the polls could be more important than the almost daily stories of the ebbing and flowing of insurgency success.
Importance of Antiwar Activities
Even given the possibility that events in Iraq will be the real key, it is important for Americans who are getting increasingly edgy about this war to make their opinions known. I don’t know what kind of turnout the protests scheduled for this week will attract. I don’t know how most of the media will spin the protests, whether they will be able to paint them as the effusions of a radical fringe or as more representative of the skepticism and opposition an increasing number of Americans seem to feel about this war.
I hope there are lots of people at the rallies who look and act like ordinary middle Americans rather then knee-jerk Bush haters. I hope the protests are free of violence initiated by the protesters.
It is unfortunately likely that without effective pressure from antiwar Americans, the administration will be more inclined to keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq, even if it does reduce the number in harm’s way. Although there is restiveness in both major parties, standard-issue political leaders are unlikely to push for an end to the ill-considered incursion into Iraq unless they see evidence of significant antiwar sentiment, backed by action.
Establishment political figures more often follow – or try to run to catch up with and appear to lead a growing political movement – than actually get out front. If the protests this weekend appear to be a movement worth identifying with, some of them might make some moves.
