Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

Texas Straight Talk ^ | September 1, 2003 | US Rep. Ron Paul

[bc2]

Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

The recent bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq has refocused the world’s attention on the dangerous situation in that nation. The Bush administration is now softening its position against UN involvement, and is considering the use of UN military forces to serve as an international peacekeeping coalition in Iraq.

We should not expect any international coalition to help us pay the bills for occupying Iraq, however. American taxpayers alone will bear the tremendous financial burden of nation building in Iraq. We are already spending about 5 billion dollars in Iraq every month, a number likely to increase as the ongoing instability makes it clear that more troops and aid are needed. We will certainly spend far more than the 65 billion dollars originally called for by the administration to prosecute the war. The possibility of spending hundreds of billions in Iraq over several years is very real. This is money we simply don’t have, as evidenced by the government’s deficit spending- borrowing- to finance the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to date.

It’s easy for politicians to say, “We will spend whatever it takes to rebuild Iraq,” but it’s not their money. Occupying Iraq is not a matter of noble national resolve like World War II. The cost of restoring order will be enormous, and we need to carefully weigh the supposed benefits and ask ourselves exactly what we hope to get for our money. I doubt many Americans believe Iraq is worth bankrupting our nation or saddling future generations with billions more in debt.

The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq. It’s not enough for our political and military leaders to make vague references to some future time when democratic rule and a civil society somehow will emerge in Iraq. It’s patently unrealistic to expect that nation’s various warring factions to suddenly embrace representative democracy and accept the outcome of a western-style vote. Even if open elections could be held, the majority might well choose an anti-American fundamentalist regime. This puts Washington in a Catch 22: The U.S. clearly will influence the creation of a new Iraqi government to ensure it is friendly to America, yet the perception that we installed the government will create further hostility toward America. There obviously are no easy solutions to the dilemmas we face in Iraq, and the complexity of the political and social realities begs the question: How do we ever hope to get out? If real stability and democratic rule simply cannot be attained in Iraq, are we prepared to occupy it for decades to come?

The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region. Human tragedy aside, we have spent half a century and more than one trillion of today’s dollars in Korea. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear technology, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, while the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the brave men who fought in Korea continue to serve there. Although the situation in Iraq is different, the lesson learned in Korea is clear. We must not allow our nation to become entangled in another endless, intractable, overseas conflict. We literally cannot afford to have the occupation of Iraq stretch on for years.

[F16Fighter]

Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

NO. We are just holding the fort until the massive crash-course training of hundreds of thousands Iraqis in American-style template civics, law enforcement, and sociology. And that had better be the plan. AND it had better be sooner rather than later...

If the evidence suggests the Iraqi people themselves can't or won't make personals committments toward maintaining a free Iraq, then why the h#ll should America continue play Mommy and Daddy? We have further "aisle clean-ups" to attend to around the world...

[TheDon]

Ron is one of the last people that should be listened to regarding foreign affairs.

[boris]

"I agree, Boris. Though sadly, I do not think much of what you said will happen."

I agree. As I like to put it, we are trying to explain the Marquis of Queensbury Rules to a fellow with a broken bottle and brass knucks.

We're in denial. Folks, we are in a state of war for the survival of our selves, our nation, and Western Civilization. Yet we will not take the gloves off, or give these barbarians what they truly deserve.

We'll reap the whirlwind presently.

--Boris

[RinaseaofDs]

Agree completely.

There is more than one cog to this argument. I've heard Rush say that the reason why no effective alternatives to petroleum have been developed is because none are necessary. Oil is cheap and plentiful.

It's also concentrated in the most inconvenient places on earth, geopolitically speaking. I think Rush is wrong about the actual costs of a petroleum based economy.

If we can't afford to occupy Iraq, then practically speaking, what would it cost to make them politically irrelevant? Is the time now to get serious about a national energy policy?

I say this because at this point, we are stuck in Iraq. We can talk about this all we want, but the alternatives to remaining there are more expensive, and vastly more dangerous. Terrorism is only the second most important reason for the Invasion of Iraq. Our economy is petroleum based, and as long as that's true, the region is important to us.

Germany and France opposed us as they did precisely because they had ironclad contracts with Hussein for cheap oil that allowed them to establish an independence from US policy and interests.

They are waiting now to pick up the pieces.

I also believe that we need to stop looking at our foreign policy situation as something that is separate from our economic situation. The US needs to take a new look at everything and do what it must to be more competitive across the board. Swap the Income Tax for a Fair Tax. Erect tarriffs, tort reform, medicare reform, immigration reform, etc. All of this as a strategic form of improving our competitiveness.

Part of the options on the table is saying, "We have taken steps to completely overhaul our ability to compete economically in the world. We are actively moving our economy off of petroleum, in partnership with Japan, Eastern Europe, and other countries that have a vested interest in disentangling our national interests from the Middle East.

We are no longer willing to cede core strategic industries to countries that actively oppose our national interests, and will take steps to protect those industries, simply by leveling playing fields we knew to be rather tilted.

Iraq was a referendum on Globalism, in my opinion. We tried subsidizing other countries, in the thought that developing other markets would eventually be good for us. We are wrong on that account. Mexico is playing against a tilted field of its own now in the Maquiladora vs. China, and isn't willing to act of its own accord to tilt it back - blaming us instead.

I'm flummoxed on why we refuse to learn anything from Reagan. Reagan's lessons are as clear and simple as anything availble with respect to governance domestically and abroad, and I guess because he's been so charicatured we just choose not to follow.

[RinaseaofDs]

Sure. They've seen a pretty pronounced drop off since Iraq. I saw posted here on FR today about capturing 12 Iranian intelligence agents in Baghdad.

This is another situation where one country has declared war on us, and we just sort of choose to ignore it for now. You here in the press that one of the main problems facing us in Iraq is the insurgence of foreign terrorist groups. That's not a correct characterization after today's arrest, is it?

Foreign intelligence agents active in Iraq means formal support by Iran of the Hussein regime, and if not the Hussein regime, then support for the general destabilization of Iraq.

I wouldn't put it past Iran to invade Iraq if we pulled out of there. Turkey might come in from the North. All of this in the name of 'stabilization' in the wake of us leaving Iraq.

[new cruelty]

As I like to put it, we are trying to explain the Marquis of Queensbury Rules to a fellow with a broken bottle and brass knucks.

ROTFLOL.

Ok, it wasn't that funny. So why am I still laughing?

[sarcasm]

We're in denial. Folks, we are in a state of war for the survival of our selves, our nation, and Western Civilization. Yet we will not take the gloves off, or give these barbarians what they truly deserve.

9-11 was the first day of WWIII - our government just won't admit it.

[A. Pole]

Foreign intelligence agents active in Iraq means formal support by Iran of the Hussein regime, and if not the Hussein regime, then support for the general destabilization of Iraq.

Hmm.

[rmlew]

Syria is a Baathist regime that killed 20000 Syrians to quel and Islamist riot in Hama.
That does not stop them from working with Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas.

[A. Pole]

Syria is a Baathist regime that killed 20000 Syrians to quel and Islamist riot in Hama. That does not stop them from working with Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas.

I see. So you believe that WTC bombers were from Syria and Iraq? Or that they were from Iran and belonged to Hezbollah or Hamas? I know, they all look the same, those darkies (even if some of them have Stalin's mustache).

[rudypoot]

True. The royal saudi family is not our friend. On the other hand, our military can only do so much. Further, I think we have bigger fish to fry after we are done with Afghanistan and Iraq (ie NK and Iran). I think their time will come.

[RinaseaofDs]

To me, its pretty much an act of war. Terrorism, funded by ostensibly 'private' individuals is one thing. State sponsored terror has already been declared by GWB as the same as an act of formal war. Finding 12 Iranian intelligence agents in Baghdad and arresting them pretty much adds up to one government formally going after another government in my book.

[A. Pole]

To me, its pretty much an act of war.

Having intelligence agents is an act of war? Wow, then almost everyone is with war with everyone else.

[WhiteGuy]

"American taxpayers alone will bear the tremendous financial burden of nation building in Iraq."

Kinda says it all doesn't it................

Americans First

[<1/1,000,000th%]

no, occupying the Balkans is also wrong.

But can we afford to occupy Germany?

[WhiteGuy]

As I understand it, Iraq will be using the revenues from its oil to fund a substantial part of this. I think people are forgetting this (on purpose?)

When do WE start getting checks?

Our president will still be using his "Full Faith and Credit" charge card for years to come "nation building".

The monthly bill will continue to arrive to our children and grand children.

[Justin Raimondo]

Bayourod, your brain is on backwards. Ron Paul has NEVER voted for agricultural subsidies. If you have proof to the contrary, please present it -- or shut the f*ck up!

[rmlew]

I wrote:
" Syria is a Baathist regime that killed 20000 Syrians to quel and Islamist riot in Hama. That does not stop them from working with Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas."

A. Pole responded
I see. So you believe that WTC bombers were from Syria and Iraq? Or that they were from Iran and belonged to Hezbollah or Hamas? I know, they all look the same, those darkies (even if some of them have Stalin's mustache).

1. Were the racial comments necessary. Regarding race, I have Mizrachi and Yemeni-Jewish in-laws.
Regarding color, my mother's brother is dark enough to be mistaken for a middle Easterner. (He was actually born in Warsaw)

2. I was responding to your ridiculous assertion that because the Iraqi Ba'athis regime was secular it would not work with Islamist terrorists. I shot down that assertion by noting the relationship between the Syrian Ba'athist regime with Hizbullah and Hamas. I should have also added Amal. (They are also protectors of various neoMarxist groups including the DFLP and the PKK.)

As far as Iraq's involvement in 9-11, that is still an open question.
WE know that the Iraqis trained terrorists in hijaaking technics at Salman Pak.
An Iraqi diplomat in the Philippenes was expelled for working with Abu Sayyaf. Abu Sayyaf is the Filippino branch of Al Qaeda.
Iraq has funded Hamas and Islamic Jihad operations against Israel. Islamic Jihad is a constituent group of Al Qaeda. QED.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the operations cheif for Al Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence on multiple occasions.

Ramzi Yossef, from the first WTC attack entered the US on an Iraqi visa. Many intelligence experts belive he was an Iraqi agent who also had ties to Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/1/30/112554
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm

While I have seen no conclusive evidence regarding Iraq's involvement in 9-11, Iraq's connections to Al-Qaeda are quite strong.

[lonestar]

Ron Paul is a man of the Republic, and I respect him enough that I would like to go to his distsrict and get to know the people who elected him.

I was one years ago. The people are conservative Republicans. He runs as a Republican, wins as a Republican. He would not win if he ran as a Libertarian or Independent.

That's the way it was when I was in his distrcit, anyway.

[Iris7]

Hey, fellah, I think the US policy in the Middle East, and most particularly toward Iraq, is the most perfect statecraft I have seen in my time.

When we start with reality as it is, now, our foreign policy is being handled brilliantly. If we weren't dependent on ten million barrels a day of imported oil, and weren't so unwilling to do what it takes to get past the "Oil Age", then it might develop that the whole Middle East would not have anything anyone else might want except perhaps for hand tyed rugs bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year instead of oil's tens of millions a day. The strategic situation would be very different indeed.