Iraq, photo courtesy of www.defense.gov

The U.S. is on track to withdraw all 45,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2011 in compliance with an agreement signed by the Bush Administration in 2008.  However, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) voiced their opposition to full withdrawal in a Washington Post Op-Ed on September 18.  The Senators submitted their case for retaining 10-25,000 troops in Iraq after 2012 to prevent Iraqi instability and help to combat Iran and Al-Qaeda, all without affecting the U.S. “budgetary situation.”   Their argument is a bad idea, backed by faulty logic.

If U.S. combat troops leave Iraq, the Senators caution, the country could fall into civil war and America’s “hard won gains” would be lost.  Though future instability in Iraq is a serious concern, the arrangement outlined in the Status of Forces agreement was that the U.S. would leave by 2011.  The Iraqi government will have to permit U.S. military trainers and experts (not combat troops) to remain after the deadline, and even beginning negotiations on the subject was controversial in Iraq.  Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Al-Shahristani has assured reporters that the Parliament will pass the extension, but both Shi’a and Sunni political blocs in the government have expressed opposition to an extension.  One of the most vocal politicians is Muqtada Al-Sadr, a Shi’a cleric and member of the parliament, who has threatened to restore his Mahdi Army, a formidable insurgent militia, if the U.S. military remains even as trainers. Though the Senators seek some assurance that U.S. action over the past seven years was not in vain, continued military occupation could reignite quieted furies.  

Read more

Iraq and Afghanistan (all tags)

Yesterday, Representative Barney Frank delivered a speech at the Center for American Progress on defense spending priorities.  Though (only hours after the president’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed) the issue may not have been the first on everyone’s minds, Frank made the case that it is all the more relevant in light of the US’ recent success.

Calling for a reduction of $200 billion a year from the current Pentagon spending amount of roughly $700 billion per year, Frank said that the United States should reevaluate its commitment to foreign military bases and large deployments of troops overseas, as well as the structure of NATO.  In addition, Frank would like to see a large chunk of that $200 billion reduction come from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who want us to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat,” said Frank, noting that this was a major victory for the president, who might want to “call President Bush and ask if he can borrow the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.”

Though the threat of terrorism is still very real, Frank argued that it is not exactly the type of threat that is fought using the most costly weapons.  “I wish you could defeat terrorists with nuclear submarines,” said Frank, “because we have a lot of nuclear submarines and they don’t have any nuclear submarines.”

Other lawmakers were less quick to seize on the Afghanistan angle.  “The urgency of finding those savings will remain there and won’t be affected by this,” said Senator Carl Levin, saying that the deficit would need to be reduced whether bin Laden was dead or alive.

Read more

Security Matters, Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Spending (all tags)