Posted on 09/03/2003 10:43:24 AM PDT by bc2
Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?
The recent bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq has refocused the worlds 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 dont have, as evidenced by the governments deficit spending- borrowing- to finance the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to date.
Its easy for politicians to say, We will spend whatever it takes to rebuild Iraq, but its 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. Its 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. Its patently unrealistic to expect that nations 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 todays 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.
You see, so it is in your interest to promote rational attitude and NOT to promote insane generalizations and hysteria. Don't you know how some Sikhs were attacked as a revange for September 11?
If aggresive fools can confuse Saudi terrorists with Sikhs they can confuse them with you or your relatives. Watch out what attitudes you are promoting.
As far as Iraq's involvement in 9-11, that is still an open question.
Yeah, and so the many theories about JFK assasination are still open.
What the heck does this mean?
"weren't so unwilling to do what it takes to get past the "Oil Age"
What would it take to get past the 'oil age' as you call it - in dollars, roughly speaking. How does that impact the individual consumer as relates to prices paid, jobs lost, etc.? How long will it take?
And what does the 'oil age' have to do with Iraq? You still haven't answered the question - how would you have handled the problem of Iraq without 'empire' as you call it?
The Iraq conquest is necessary for at least three individually compelling reasons of which one is the interconnected nature of the Iranian, Russian, French-German, African, Chinese, and North Korean situations. The Bush administration is doing this very well.
My use of the word "statecraft" was meant to make my statement clear from the begining. It means the art of power and diplomacy, and the art of government. The "craft" of "state". Perhaps I shouldn't have used "statecraft" as it is not commonly used in America, as it has connotations unpleasant to much of the electorate!
Restating, the Bush administration foreign policy actions show an acute understanding of the international situation. When I first understood what they were doing in it's entirety I was amazed that this could be the American government I was watching! Not the usual doofuss Animal House!
As far as moving out of the "Oil Age", this would be, relative to just continuing to import oil, expensive, politically difficult, time consuming, and a lot of work generally. Many powerful groups and people would prefer the status quo. The science is pretty much there, but the technology would have to be developed, and the implementation would have to be a series of steps. How long it would take depends on the willingness of the people to get the job done. It is a very large project, bigger than World War Two, more the size of what the Chinese have done since 1920. Such a large project that execution definately requires statecraft!
It would be a big job, plenty of work for everybody. I see no reason that adequate food, shelter, clothing, and health care would need to be sacrificed if we make this change. If we wait to do it until we are forced to make the change from the "Oil Age" then the sacrifices will likely be bitter.
Great, I have no issues with finding new technologies that would reduce our dependence on oil (as long as the average familiy's budget isn't busted just to be able to afford a car to drive to work).
But you still haven't answered the question about how you would handle the Iraq problem. I'll presume you don't have an answer. :)
The problem is that Pakistan has Nuclear weapons and is allied to China.
We can't hit Saudi Arabia until we get alternate sources of oil. That may have been a reason to hit Iraq first. (the Saudis should worry if we take out Hugo Chavez of Venezuala)
Don't you know how some Sikhs were attacked as a revange for September 11?
I hope the people who did so are prosecuted and put away.
When you imply Iraqi guilt for Islamist/Wahabi crime just because they are in the area and are Arabs you over generalise same way as those people who blamed Sikhs because they had turbans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.