Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 4 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (6 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   5 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

To live within our means, let's leave Iraq

By       Message Robert Naiman     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 8/21/11

Author 18468
Become a Fan
  (4 fans)
If the US is serious about reducing its debt, it could start by living up to its promise to withdraw troops by December.

 
US forces are scheduled to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011 [REUTERS]

The Senate and the Roman People have declared that the US government is spending too much money. We have to live within our means. Difficult choices lie ahead. We can't do everything anyone might like us to do. Everything is on the table.

Therefore, instead of keeping US troops in Iraq past December, we should pull them out like we promised. If not now, when? John McCain once said there's no problem with keeping US troops in Iraq forever, just like we do in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. How liberals mocked him. But that's what the Obama Administration is now trying to do: keep US troops in Iraq forever.

Some members of Congress have a different idea: let's leave Iraq like we promised in the signed agreement between the two governments.

Representative Barbara Lee has introduced legislation that would prevent the Pentagon from keeping thousands of US troops in Iraq by cutting off funds for the war after December 31, 2011. In other words, the bill would cut off funds for violating the agreement with Iraq to pull out troops by December. It would cut off funds for violating Obama's campaign promise to end the war.

Permanent occupation?

The Pentagon doesn't want you to notice that at the same time Washington is seized with debt hysteria, and the nation's mainstream media are demanding cuts to social security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous claim that "we can no longer afford it," the Pentagon is laying plans to keep 10,000 US troops in Iraq forever. They call these troops "trainers," so we are not supposed to notice. But these "trainers" engage in combat: they kill Iraqis, and they get killed by Iraqis.

It's like the joke about the Jewish guy who was prevailed upon by his Catholic neighbors to convert to Catholicism so they'd no longer be bothered by the smell of grilled chicken on Friday. "Born a Jew, raised a Jew, now you're a Catholic." But the next Friday, they smelled chicken. When they went to investigate, they found him sprinkling holy water: "Born a chicken, raised a chicken, now you're a fish."

Combat soldier, now you're a "trainer."

Most of the debate about cuts to military spending in the $1.2tn in debt reduction over 10 years that the Gang of 12 "Super Congress" is supposed to find by Thanksgiving has revolved around the "base" Pentagon budget, not the part of the Pentagon budget that funds current wars. This isn't surprising, because the "base budget" is where most of the money is; the base budget is where the ax of the automatic trigger will fall, if there is no agreement.

But the Gang of 12 can propose whatever it wants to in order to come up with the $1.2tn, including bringing the troops home sooner than the Pentagon wants.

The money the Pentagon plans to use to keep US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is also real money that we could use for debt reduction instead of cutting domestic spending or raising taxes. Nobody has bothered to calculate what it will cost to keep 10,000 US troops in Iraq forever, because Washington hasn't acknowledged yet that this is the Pentagon's plan. But here's a very crude estimate. If it costs a billion dollars to keep a thousand troops deployed for a year (a commonly used crude estimate) then will cost $100bn to keep 10,000 troops deployed in Iraq for 10 years -- the time horizon of the debt reduction exercise.

A billion here, a billion there: pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Tea Party leaders say it's time to cut the Pentagon budget, The Hill reports. On this issue, the Tea Party is right: it's time for the Pentagon to go on a real diet. Ending the Iraq war would be a great place to start. Tell Congress to cut off funding for the Iraq war after December.

Cross-posted from Al Jazeera

 

- Advertisement -

Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Does AIPAC want war?

An Anti-War Candidate Announces for President

Kucinich to Introduce Gaza Ceasefire Resolution - Who Will Co-sponsor?

Reset: Stephen Kinzer's Vision of a New U.S. Relationship with Turkey and Iran

Amnesty vs. AIPAC: Senate to Consider AIPAC Resolution Endorsing War in Gaza

The New York Times misleading public on Iran