Crossposted from Alaskan Librarian
In a daily commentary and in testimony before Congress, Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute demolishes Administration myths about the need for the continued military occupation of Iraq.
The Jan 31, 2007 daily commentary explains in very clear terms why the idea that al-Qaeda will find a happy home in Iraq if the US leaves. After explaining the basic math and why the Sunni loath al-Qaeda only somewhat less than the United States, Mr Carpenter explains:
The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda is improbable on its face. Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq's population. And, in marked contrast to the situation under Saddam Hussein, they now control the military and police.
At best, al Qaeda could hope for a tenuous presence in predominantly Sunni areas of the country while being incessantly stalked and harassed by government forces -- and probably hostile Iraqi Sunnis as well. That doesn't exactly sound like a reliable base of operations for attacks on America.
Mr. Carpenter's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 11, 2007 open with his numerically sound explanation for why al-Qaeda will never inherit Iraq. He goes on to explode other Administration myths of the supposed consequences of leaving like:
- The Terrorists Would Be Emboldened Worldwide
- The Conflict Will Spill Over Iraq’s Borders and Create Regional Chaos
- Leaving Iraq Would Betray a Moral Obligation to the Iraqi People
Mr. Carpenter's testimony ends with an exploration of the costs of staying in Iraq. These include:
Damage to America’s Standing in the World - "Even the September 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq conceded that the U.S. occupation of Iraq had served as a focal point and inspiration for Muslim extremists. Equally worrisome, it had also served as a training arena for such militants to hone their military and terrorist skills. An Al Qaeda letter intercepted by the U.S. military indicates that the organization itself regards a continued U.S. military presence and, consequently, a long war in Iraq as a boon to its cause."
Straining the All-Volunteer Military - "Even some hawks are concerned about the negative impact of the Iraq mission on the all- volunteer force (AVF). They should be concerned. In December 2006, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, bluntly told a House committee that the active-duty Army "will break" unless there was a permanent increase in force structure. And that is before any contemplated additional deployments to Iraq."
Costs in Blood and Treasure - "The tab for the Iraq mission is already more than $350 billion, and the meter is now running at approximately $8 billion a month. Furthermore, even those appalling figures do not take into account indirect costs, such as long-term care for wounded Iraq war veterans."
Along the way, Mr. Carpenter asks questions that I'd like to see asked of the Administration and Congress every day until plain answers are obtained:
"It is essential to ask the administration and its hawkish backers at what point they will admit that the costs of this venture have become unbearable. How much longer are they willing to have our troops stay in Iraq? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? How many more tax dollars are they willing to pour into Iraq? Another $300 billion? $600 billion? $1 trillion? And most crucial of all, how many more American lives are they willing to sacrifice? Two thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand?"
Go ahead and read these. If you find fault with Mr. Carpenter's facts or conclusions, tell me why.
The only fault I find is that I believe the United States must remain committed to provided some level of reconstruction aid to Iraq until their oil and civilian infrastructure is back to the way it was in January 2003. We also need to remain committed to the autonomy, if not outright independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. Unlike Mr. Carpenter, I do subscribe to the "you break it, you buy it." I just know that you can't fix a watch with a hammer, no matter how sincere your desire to fix the watch is. The right tool for the job. And with four years of blank checks and rising violence and decaying infrastructure, the occupation is definitely NOT the right tool for the job.
We really, really need to try something different.
Comments
Though I might agree with the conclusions
I *might* agree with the conculsions, *might* because I never feel like I get the real story. Some days I think it's worse than I read/hear/see and other days I think it must be better.That being said, if The Cato Institute said the sky was blue I'd feel the need to go out and have a look just to be sure.Libertarians actually make the neocons look resonable to me sometimes... And that ain't easy.
Al Quaeda myth
The real myth is that people think the only threat in the Middle East is Al Quaeda.
come on
If you cite some biased, liberal, Democrat Ted Kennedy, Jane Fonda source like the Cato Institute ... well, what did you expect? This is nothing but a bunch of liberally biased liberal biases.Liberal.
who?
What are the other Middle East threats? Hezbollah? The Madhi Army or the Badr? I can't think of any others. And I don't think there's any evidence to suggest any of those 3 would give a crap about us if we weren't in Iraq.
Re:Al Quaeda myth
No one I know believes that. Just another myth, I guess.
Re:Al Quaeda myth
Apparently you do Daniel because this isn't the first time you've hinged arguments about our involvement in Iraq on the Al Quaea issue.
Re:come on
Fascist!
Practical demonstration of why Pres' Support Falls
Greg's comment is a perfect demonstration of why the President and his supporters can't build support for their war in Iraq.They insult the intelligence of the 70% of Americans who disapprove of the President's foreign policy by continually making these completely illogical divisions among people:
Until the President and his supporters want to at least acknowledge the actual positions of their critics, they should expect support for the Iraq fiasco to decrease.Give up the false choices. If we can't do it hear, the factions in Iraq certainly can't.
Re:Al Quaeda myth
Iraq would not be a security threat if we left. It wasn't a security threat to the United States when we invaded in 2003.Meanwhile we cozy up to Saudi Arabia while they fund intolerant madrassas worldwide and their citizens fund and provide manpower to conflicts from Chechnya to Iraq.And while not strictly speaking the Middle East, it is only a matter of time before terror/taliban supporter and nuclear power Pakistan falls to the fundamentalists and starts distributing nukes to angry parties.And meanwhile we're trying to fix a watch with a hammer in Iraq to the tune of $8 Billion a month.