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 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.
interesting observations. Do you have a starting point for this research?
And if we worried about cost instead of the world at large, we would have lost every war and freedom that we possess.
Don't forget, those folks don't generally work for a living and were reduced to beggars by Saddam while he built his 60 new palaces!! It's going to take a while just to convert them to a "work" ethic.
Actually a more likely scenario is for the Chinese, or even the Russians, or, believe it or not, the Germans and French, to move in to dominate the oil producing regions. Too much power and money is at stake.
Yeah, Jefferson was a fool and Wolfowitz is a genius. Right.
This should answer all your questions about whys and hows.
Every year 200 times more Americans die out of cancer than died in WTC with a death that is often much more horrible. And Iraq has as much in common with WTC as coffee with cancer.
A fraction of money spent on nation "building" in Iraq would make a big difference in research on cancer.
You are evading the key question. Well, you cannot answer it since the WTC bombers were from Saudi Arabia and they were Islamists and not secualr Baathists. You know it very well.
The problem is--and has been--that Iraq was down on the list of real targets. The WTC attack was paid for by the Saudis and most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Then there is Iran (almost nuclear-armed), Syria, Pakistan--and North Korea.
Personally I still think we should have nuked them all--Mecca and Medina included--and simply put a total embargo on any trade and travel between the West and the Islamic world.
They have oil. We can--with the will and the technology--do without it. We have computers, electrical generators, medicine, aircraft, cars, satellites, and all the other fruits of infidel nations. Let them do without any of this.
I am completely serious. Nuke them back to 700 A.D. and let them return to camels in the desert. No more flight training. No more PhDs in biology (to help them make bio weapons). No more travel--in either direction.
They need US more than we need THEM. Indeed, civilization needs Islam not at all. So let's roll--and be done with it.
Nation-building: pfah. Boots on the ground: idiocy.
And for those who think this too extreme, I have only one response: 9/11/2001. The next one they pull is likely to be worse. Even if we try to win their "hearts and minds".
--Boris
You would meet a lot of wealthy welfare farmers. They oppose government spending on anything that would leave less money available for farm programs. Ron Paul represents them very well.
No you don't! Are you going to tell me that you saw the Iraqis there?
Intervention begets intervention. Washington warned, people quit listening. If I'd told you in 1990 that sending American troops to return a King to his throne in Kuwait would compel a religious nut to declare war on America for putting soldiers in his homeland. If I'd told you that said relgious nut would nearly break one of our ships in half, would devastate two of our embassies. Blow the face off an Air Force barracks in his homeland, slam a planeload of Americans into the Pentagon and bring down the WTC killing thousands more, would you have believed it?
Intervention begets intervention.
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.