Iraq

Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have a plan for withdrawing from Iraq.  Their article, published in the September/October 2008 Issue of Foreign Affairs states that Democratic and Republican goals can both be met through a withdrawal timeline.  They argue that serious draw downs should not occur until after the Iraqi national election, set for late 2009.  Further, by 2011, at least half of our current troop population will still be there.  This means that we will continue to have quite a large number of US military in Iraq for the next five years.  I personally, do not see how this addresses the Democratic goals, and I further do not see how this addresses the increased need for more troops in Afghanistan. 

The article starts with a recent history of the violence in Iraq, and explains how much the situation has improved in less than three years.  Sectarian violence is at an all-time low, and the authors explain how the Iraqi and US governments have remedied the once dangerous situation.  They then address what the US should and should not do at this point, and this is where I begin my critique. 

The authors argue that threatening withdrawal will be counterproductive, and I agree. Many of our threats are becoming empty, and most Iraqis would see a threat like this the same way, especially with Bush still at the helm.  Instead of threatening, we should be talking.  We should address conditions to our withdrawal, such as a clause stating that US troops will be brought back if elections do not go as planned and violence erupts again.  Why should we assume that Iraqis, who, according to this article, have shown such progress, cannot conduct elections?  Obviously, we should be prepared, but shouldn’t we react to disaster after it happens? 

The ”New Problems” facing Iraq, such as integrating the Iraqi Security Forces, reestablishing refugees and improving central government control, cannot be fixed by the US military.  These are problems that should be addressed by diplomacy, the UN, and US political advisers to Iraq.  The authors make a wonderful suggestion for offering vouchers for refugees and displaced persons to come back and build a home, and state that this would have to be undertaken by the Iraqi government.  The problem of improving the central government and their spending should be addressed by sharply curtailing US financial support for the Iraqi government.  At this point, American money should only be used after that of Iraq.  Therefore, letting their government stand on its own two feet would perhaps address the problem of its lack of responsible spending.  I also agree when they state that a coup would be disastrous, and that a US presence will help to avoid that situation.  However, we cannot let this be our excuse for continuing our occupation; a coup could happen the day after we leave, even if the government is considered completely stable by US standards.  We simply cannot stay there forever. 

The article addresses Kirkuk as a continuing and sticky problem, which I believe will be a large source of contention until the Kurds feel that they have been granted independence.  Whether this means actually granting their wish for “Kurdistan,” I do not know.  The place of Iraqi Kurds has been a problem long before the time of Saddam, and I believe should be addressed, and fixed, on its own, not wrapped up in the general topic of rebuilding Iraq. 

In addressing Iran, Biddle, O’Hanlon and Pollack state that there should be more Iraqi-Iranian-US dialogue, as well as incentives for Iranian cooperation in Iraqi reconstruction.  I believe that Iran has incited violence in the past in order to take pressure off of itself and its nuclear program.  The best incentive to offer Iran now is dialogue and diplomacy (not threats) concerning its nuclear progress.  As long as the US is bogged down in Iraq, Ahmadinejad knows that we cannot physically come after him.  Withdrawing our troops from Iraq would not only offer Iran some piece of mind, but also would allow us to bargain properly with them about their nuclear program, and give our threats (only if necessary) some real credibility. 

The end of the article addresses the importance of peacekeeping forces, especially when we look at Bosnia and Kosovo.  However, instead of taking on peacekeeping alone, we should be including the UN, NATO, the European Union and our allies (if we have yet to alienate them).  Peacekeeping is much different than occupation, which is the transition the US military will be forced to make with increased troop withdrawals.  This is something that the UN is familiar with, and with which our allies might be willing to help. 

The issue of whether a state is ready to succeed on its own can be debated until the end of time.  It was only my grandparents’ generation when Germany was considered the epitome of evil, and the mention of Japan made Americans nervous.  Now, Japan and Germany are close US allies.  Less than forty years ago we considered Vietnam a lost cause when we withdrew the last US troops, and today we are working toward an alliance.  Even twenty-five years ago, I highly doubt that a Russian father-daughter gymnastics combo would have become American Olympic heroes.  Things change; power cycles; states rise and states fall.  I believe that asking for independence is the best evidence that a country is ready.  And obviously the US will be there if disaster strikes.  This is, after all, how the United States came to exist. 

McCain said it best when he stated that our first priority is to make sure that US troops are safe.  Our troops are no longer as safe in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq.  ‘Staying the course’ will only continue this trend.  It is time to change our priorities. 

 
A picture of an Iraqi psychiatric hospital, now in disrepair. (NYTimes.com)
(Note: we know that US troops are suffering from psychiatric disorders upon returning to the US, but what about the Iraqi people?)

It seems that the US is bearing the brunt of reconstruction expenses in Iraq, even though the Iraqi government is projected to receive a $79 billion surplus from oil revenues by the end of 2008.  As the International Herald Tribune reported last week, Iraq is not only not spending its ever-increasing budget, but some of the government’s money is actually sitting in a US bank.  The figures offered by the article could be easily misconstrued, such as the fact that the US spent $23.2 billion on reconstruction projects since the 2003 invasion while Iraq only spent $3.9 billion between 2005 and April, 2008.  It seems to me that the majority of US reconstruction spending would have taken place prior to that of Iraq.  Not to mention that oil reconstruction, which allowed for increased Iraqi revenues, was most likely a large chunk of the US budget.  Nonetheless, Americans should be questioning the continuing billion-dollar spending.  One worrisome statistic is that between 2005 and 2007, Iraq only contributed 1 percent of its operating budget to maintain reconstruction projects. 

In another story about budgeting US money in Iraq, The New York Times reported yesterday that 20% of US spending in Iraq has gone to contractors for the US military and other US government agencies.  This extremely interesting article states that private contractors now outnumber US troops in Iraq, and that this large population has allowed the US government to keep troop numbers as low as they are while also avoiding a draft.  Further, US spending on contractors (starting from 2003) is slated to reach over $100 billion by the end of 2008.  I won’t paraphrase the entire article here, but I vehemently recommend that everyone read it.  I will be very interested to see how military contracting is used in future conflicts, US and otherwise. 

In a morning speech Thursday outside the Oval Office, George W addressed the Iraq war, political and military advances made by the Iraqi government and shorter tours of duty.  The International Herald Tribune published the full text of his speech. 

“This has been a month of encouraging news from Iraq.  Violence is down to its lowest level since the spring of 2004, and we’re now in our third consecutive month with reduced violence levels holding steady.  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker caution that the progress is still reversible, but they report that there now appears to be a ‘degree of durability’ to the gains we have made. 
A significant reason for this sustained progress is the success of the surge.  Another is the increasing capability of the Iraqi forces.”

Some media outlets are focusing on Bush’s statement about the possibility of “reversible progress,” or that he did not specify on the topic of the security agreement with the Iraqi government.  Bush did state that military tours in Iraq will be decreased from 15 months to 12, which I’m sure is good news for our troops.  However, he only vaguely addressed a full withdrawal timeline, as usual.