Robert Dujarric and Andy Zelleke challenge Senator John McCain in the Christian Science Monitor. They ask three important questions that everyone in the United States ought to have answered before casting a vote in the November election.
Senator McCain has yet to give the American people clear answers to three fundamental questions: What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come? What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives? And what, concretely, is the strategy for getting there?
I am not affiliated with the McCain campaign in any way and cannot be considered one of its spokesmen. These are important questions, however, and Senator McCain shouldn’t be the only one with some answers.
First let’s get something out of the way. Not every war is fought for the purpose of achieving something good or creating something new that has never existed--an Arab democracy in Iraq, for example. Wars are also fought to maintain a status quo and to prevent a bad outcome.
Dujarric and Zelleke are understandably skeptical about the emergence of a democratic Iraq friendly to the United States in light of Hamas's victory in the last elections in the West Bank and Gaza. But let’s set aside the fact that Iraq isn’t Gaza. Let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that Iraq will never be a light unto the nations or a shining city on a hill in the Middle East. Even if Iraq never becomes a model democratic state in the Arab world--which would benefit Americans and Arabs alike--far worse outcomes are possible than a limited victory, a stalemate, or even several more years of relative dysfunction and chaos. The worst case scenario would be, as Dujarric and Zelleke imply, the transformation of Iraq into a California-sized oil-rich Gaza.
Cost, cost, cost, cost, is what isn't considered here.
Cost to our men, on their 4th, 5th tours.
Cost to the nation, in terms of the billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions, being sunk into the sands of Iraq.
I should link to the "what else could we spend our money on", with regard to Iraq, but I'm lazy this moment.
Is the cost worth the benefit?
The nightmare specter of "chaos" if we leave, is too easy.
The main sentence is this:
The war in Iraq is beginning to look less like a war and more like a rough-around-the-edges peacekeeping mission. Prematurely removing peacekeepers from the fragile and still-volatile country would, in all likelihood, reignite the war that is finally winding down. If Iraq still looked like a quagmire, as it did two years ago, a tactical retreat might be the right call. Retreating now, though, would be gratuitous. Every military and political gain made since the surge was implemented last year would be undone. And for what?
Perhaps.
But we aren't going to be able to stay, if we aren't wanted, by the populace, of both countries.
And neither country's people actually want us there. If there were to be a referendum in either country - it would be clear.
Certainly, the extraordinary powers granted to the US forces - and to the security agencies - I CANNOT SEE will not be abided, for much longer, if a cohesive nation arises in Iraq.
And again - cost. I want to see those hundreds of billions of dollars USED IN MY OWN GODD**NED COUNTRY!!
We have enough need here.
Totten, if you have a way to pay for this, so the debt isn't put upon our children, make it known.
If not, you are simply an irresponsible user of the nation's credit card.
hypocrisyrules,
I sympathize with what you're saying about cost. It's ridiculously frigging expensive in both lives and money.
Here's the thing, though. If the Gaza scenario unfolds in Iraq, we'll be back. And then it will cost MORE. A lot more.
I am not interested in a relationship with Iraq that in any way resembles Israel's relationship with its Arab neighbors -- which is what I'm afraid is going to happen if we don't get it right this time.
Since the opposing plan is not simply to withdraw from Iraq, but to keep some tens of thousands of men and women in Iraq, and redeploy others to neighboring countries, including combat assignments in Afghanistan, I am not sure what the basis of cost savings would be. Dave Schuler has estimated it might cost $152 billion to withdraw from an unstable Iraq. He also points out that in "Viet Nam 40% of the deaths of American soldiers occurred during the withdrawal."
Withdrawal is not a no-cost option; it might not even be the lowest cost option.
Good questions to be answered if balanced by the questions are what are the consequences and costs of a hasty withdrawal. I wonder if the costs were ever looked into for the withdrawal from Vietnam and the cost in millions who paid for the dhimmierat surrender? What was the cost of Soviet expansionism caused by this surrender?
What was the cost to defeat this expansionism?
From my experience people who ask questions about the costs aren't concerned about those who will have to pay the bill for reckless and irresponsible behavior.
Just as people like these told us what an evil man the Shah was how many today are ready to condemn them for their irresponsible actions and the untold harm their actions have caused and the butcher bill they have created. We would not be in Iraq today had it not been for these people.
But rest assured we will hear the crickets cheep before we hear why the surrender in Vietnam or the betrayal of the Shah were wonderful things from people who always know the cost but seldom realize the value of their policies.
Good questions to be answered if balanced by the questions are what are the consequences and costs of a hasty withdrawal. I wonder if the costs were ever looked into for the withdrawal from Vietnam and the cost in millions who paid for the dhimmierat surrender? What was the cost of Soviet expansionism caused by this surrender?
What was the cost to defeat this expansionism?
From my experience people who ask questions about the costs aren't concerned about those who will have to pay the bill for reckless and irresponsible behavior.
Just as people like these told us what an evil man the Shah was how many today are ready to condemn them for their irresponsible actions and the untold harm their actions have caused and the butcher bill they have created. We would not be in Iraq today had it not been for these people.
But rest assured we will hear the crickets cheep before we hear why the surrender in Vietnam or the betrayal of the Shah were wonderful things from people who always know the cost but seldom realize the value of their policies.
Good questions to be answered if balanced by the questions are what are the consequences and costs of a hasty withdrawal. I wonder if the costs were ever looked into for the withdrawal from Vietnam and the cost in millions who paid for the dhimmierat surrender? What was the cost of Soviet expansionism caused by this surrender?
What was the cost to defeat this expansionism?
From my experience people who ask questions about the costs aren't concerned about those who will have to pay the bill for reckless and irresponsible behavior.
Just as people like these told us what an evil man the Shah was how many today are ready to condemn them for their irresponsible actions and the untold harm their actions have caused and the butcher bill they have created. We would not be in Iraq today had it not been for these people.
But rest assured we will hear the crickets cheep before we hear why the surrender in Vietnam or the betrayal of the Shah were wonderful things from people who always know the cost but seldom realize the value of their policies.
Here's the thing, though. If the Gaza scenario unfolds in Iraq, we'll be back. And then it will cost MORE. A lot more.
I dunno, it depends on when - let's say in 10 years, 5 years after a peaceful final withdrawl? If Iran hasn't been neutralized by then, don't ignore the chance of having it "accidentally" spilling over and helping.
And, you're leaving out the chance it might not require anything about back, it just might require their elections next year - if their vote is tinged by having a strong desire to have us leave.
Mr. Totten;
If the ill-advised and poorly carried out adventure in Iraq ends and that sorry hellhole does turn into a larger Gaza, then it won't cost even more than it has already - or at least it doesn't have to.
Rubble doesn't make trouble - especially if it's half-melted.
Fletcher Christian,
Sure, we could nuke Iraq or ignite a Dresden-style firestorm in Iraqi cities, but we won't. There isn't a chance that will ever happen unless Iraq nukes the United States. So let's stick to the real world here, and real world options, k?
The USA probably won't do that. Someone else might; Israel is the obvious candidate, but if terrorists with a power base in that area cause enough trouble in places such as Chechnya (sp?) Russia just might. Or India. Or even China. They haven't forgotten what the West appears to have; that the only way to deal with some enemies is to make them ex-enemies - very ex.
Geez,
Including our host, Marc, Michael Totten, as usual, is the only sane voice regarding Iraq!
While the dollar cost is minuscle compared to our GDP, there is no accounting cost for lives lost!
Yet, sacrifice for a cause believed in, as just about all survey's of serving military personnel confirm, is far superior to just living/dying in America over the same time span!
4,000 +/- in Iraq versus 204,000 +/- in the USA.
link
Go Obama! Go idiots!
Mike
[Bare URL corrected. Please follow the instructions provided above the comment entry fields when posting live links. --NM]
Mike that's kinda incoherent - want to clarify just a bit?
A.L.
Fletcher Christian: the only way to deal with some enemies is to make them ex-enemies
Let's just say that I'm glad you're not a military advisor to General David Petraeus. He figured out another way to make enemies ex-enemies, and it doesn't involve war crimes.
#13 Michael Totten:
Killing the enemy is a war crime now?