Iraq

Negotiators for the U.S. and Iraq have finally come to an agreement on the disposition of American forces in Iraq. The new security deal will require U.S. forces to leave Iraq cities and towns by next summer as a prelude to a complete withdrawal by 2011. In the meantime, the U.S. troops will reside in bases outside the populated areas it vacated. President Bush is expected to accept the agreement, but it still needs to pass through several layers of Iraqi bureaucracy , so who knows?

Although, I don’t think Bush is really too happy with the concessions he’s had to make, I’m looking forward to a U.S. drawdown. However, I would have liked to see a SOFA agreement and the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq, a goal I think the President was shooting for, too. Still, Iraq is a a sovereign state and can (and should) manage its own affairs. If they want us to leave, we should. I’m interested to see what happens in the areas we vacate. As we exit and larger areas are left to Iraqi control, will we see the terrorists move back in? Will we see Iran attempt to achieve control by fueling a new insurgency?

If things get tough for Iraq after America leaves, who are they gonna call for help?

Iraq’s National Security Advisor, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, says that any security deal with the U.S. must contain a specific timetable for troop withdrawal.

Fine.

I don’t have a problem with leaving Iraq after the job is done. But to post a departure schedule is beyond ridiculous. The Iraqi’s position calls for all U.S. led forces to leave once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility for all 18 of the country’s provinces. So far, Iraq has assumed primary responsibility for security in 9 of the 18 provinces.

So, essentially Iraq is asking us to say,

“Hey, al-Qaida! We’ll be out of Iraq just as soon as we turn over this last province. Just lay low for a while and things will soon be back to normal. In fact, if you’re quiet, we’ll probably finish the job faster!”

You know, Japan has the second largest GDP, China is #4 and South Korea is #12. A large portion of the world’s economic exchange takes place within this relatively small portion of the world. And in the middle of it all is North Korea, a failed economy. North Korea, whose stated objective is the reunification of the Korean peninsula. Imagine what this would do to the region and the world’s economy. What’s preventing North Korea from moving on its southern neighbor? The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, who have maintained stability in the region for almost 60 years.

Perhaps that’s just what the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern governments are afraid of.

The latest development in the continually evolving political position of Barack Obama finds our vague, mysterious, untried candidate flip-flopping on troop withdrawals:

“When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Interesting words from the person who based his candidacy on the complete removal of troops in sixteen months. Per the Obama campaign website:

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Attempting to explain the disparity, Obama said,

“We’re going to try this again. Apparently, I was not clear enough. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I’ve also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out.” [Furthermore,] “I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground, Iraqi officials. When I come back that information will obviously shape our plans for moving forward.”

When asked why he’s backing away from a specific timeline for troop withdrawals, Obama said,

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain security. That assessment hasn’t changed.”

So, Senator Obama, if I’m hearing you correctly, your official position on troop withdrawals is:

“I will begin to immediately or in the near or distant future begin to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. Depending on political expediency, I will remove two or more or no combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within a time-frame dictated by the safety and security of our troops which may be 16 months or more or less or never.”

(feel free to use that for your campaign)

MORE: Hot Air; Wak up America; Red State; Flopping Aces; Power Line

In an unsurprising move, President Bush decided to suspend troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer. Based on the assessment presented to Congress by Gen Petraeus that the current progress was “fragile and reversible.” Therefore, between now and the end of July, we’ll draw-down from 20 to 15 brigades before taking a 45-day pause to reassess the situation before making anymore changes. This will likely mean the next president will assume office with over 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally, President Bush will announce a reduction in Army combat tours from 15 to 12 months, with 12 months between deployments. This new tour length will be applied to units deployed to the region in August. Hopefully, this will reduce the number of “in lieu of” taskings the other services perform in order to ease the deployment burden of their Army counterparts.

So, what about financing the war? Last year, the President asked Congress for $108 billion, to which Congress added $17 billion in domestic spending. Of course, this earned a veto from the President. This year, Congress is eyeing the war-funding bill as a catalyst to stimulate the economy, meaning more ear-marks.

{ sigh }

Supposedly, Congress is concerned with the cost of the war, but rather than trying to control those costs, they’re adding to it. Prudent? Evidently, they didn’t learn anything last year.

The U.S. has now spent over $500 billion on the war in Iraq, a total that could amount to trillions of dollars after factoring in the costs of veteran healthcare and the refurbishment of the military’s depleted equipment and materials.

What does this mean, really?

Current defense spending is roughly 4% of our GDP, compared to 9% in 1968, during the Viet Nam War. Though substantial, it’s hardly budget-busting.

Still, it’s time for the Iraqi government to pony-up! Iraq is pumping about 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day, the highest output since the 2003 invasion. Ambassador Crocker said that “the era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure projects is over” and Iraq will be spending its own money to pay for rebuilding.

Well, that’s a start…I think the Iraqis also need to re-pay the U.S. for the tremendous cost of their liberation. After all, we’ve essentially financed this war with debt and those bills are coming due.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said twice yesterday that Iraq “is a failure,” and the President’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.” Pelosi argued that

“[t]he purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq”… “They have not done that.”

and yet Pelosi concedes,

The troops have succeeded, God bless them.

(sounds like someone is trying to have her cake and eat it, too!)

These words from Pelosi after a letter from Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector, an al-Qaeda leader in Anbar province, reports that Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Abu-Tariq says last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight” and al-Qaeda’s security structure suffered “total collapse”. He goes on to describe that his force, once 600-strong, has shrunk to 20.

Abu-Tariq also blames the local community:

We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers…Those people were nothing but hypocrites, liars and traitors and were waiting for the right moment to switch sides with whoever pays them most.

as well as al-Qaeda itself, referencing their brutal tactics:

“We helped them to unite against us…The Americans and the apostates launched their campaigns against us and we found ourselves in a circle not being able to move, organize or conduct our operations.”

Seems to me when your enemies are making statements like these, you just may be winning!

What Pelosi and the dhimmi-crats are trying to do is separate themselves from the new direction Bush has taken in Iraq, but they don’t want to sound like defeatists in light of the Iraq’s improved stability. This is the only way they’re going to win on National Security in November.

Pelosi is playing political games and although she doesn’t want to sound like a “naysayer”, she is certainly coming off as one. Ms Pelosi has joined her Senate brother, Harry Reid, with some “This War is Lost” comments of her own.

(h/t Snooper at Wake up America). President Bush, in the middle of a six-nation tour of Middle East states and riding the wave of the troop surge success, is poised to deal a damaging blow to the cut-and-runners in Washington. In a Newsweek article entitled, Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq, Michael Hirsh reports that “Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries.” Specifically,

“the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements.”

This is huge! A SOFA is is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. We have SOFA agreements with the U.K., Germany, Korea, Japan and others. Currently, we have no SOFA agreement with Iraq, which means, technically, we (coalition forces) fall under Iraqi jurisdiction. In theory, Iraqi Courts have the right to try Coalition forces for any alleged offenses, though this right has never been exercised. It also means we’re in this for the long haul with the establishment of a permanent U.S military presence in Iraq. I believe this is an important achievement for the U.S. and is a necessary step to ensure the security of our homeland. As things stand right now, stability in the Middle East will only be achieved with active U.S. involvement in the region.

Of course, this move doesn’t play into the political strategies of Hillary Clinton and, especially, Barack Obama, who promises to remove a brigade a month until every U.S. service member is home (a plan that I believe demonstrates a very naive view of the situation in the Middle East).

Unlike his political rivals, President Bush doesn’t appear to be playing games. I admire his ability to stand up for what he believes in the midst of significant resistance from Congress and the MSM. I believe he is truly doing what he thinks is “right” for America, and is leaving his legacy to history. It’d be nice to see our other elected officials get behind our President and start acting in America’s best interest instead of pursuing personal political agendas.

President Bush vetoed the defense-spending bill due to a provision that would subject Iraq to massive liability related to crimes perpetrated against Americans by Saddam Hussein. The President feels this provision would undermine current progress in Iraq. Specifically, Bush claims the provision

“would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation’s reconstruction efforts and…would undermine the foreign policy and commercial interests of the United States.”

Basically, the provision would change how foreign countries may be sued under U.S. law, allowing lawyers to freeze assets in the amount of damages claimed in lawsuits related to acts of terrorism. For Iraq, this puts more than a billion dollars at risk, and could tie-up assets for years.

Of course, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi are outraged, and made this joint statement:

“We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed.”

I’m sure many would agree that the President is making a mistake and should go ahead and sign the bill. I disagree. The problem with this bill, as with many others, are the riders that legislators attach to it. The provision in question has absolutely nothing to do with the defense-spending bill and should not even be included. I disagree with the line-item veto, but can understand its necessity when faced with something like this. However, a line-item veto wouldn’t be necessary if Congress acted more responsibly and quit attaching unrelated riders to important legislation!

President Bush asked those impatient and frustrated by the Iraq War to take a long view of the conflict, promising history would prove the naysayers wrong.

In his speech to the VFW in Kansas, Bush compared the Iraq war to previous US conflicts in Asia pointing out that these had lost popular support, but eventually proved their worth.

According to the President,

“The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. … “The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up an Asian Tiger.”

Bush also cited Vietnam as a cautionary tale for those urging troop withdrawals today. This notion was summarily dismissed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said,

“President Bush’s attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference,” … “Our nation was misled… blah, blah, blah…”

Yep, same old song-and-dance from Senator Harry, who is missing (as always) the point. The bottom line is that we lost our will in Viet Nam, essentially lost the war and the area remains unstable. We’re now losing our will in Iraq and this loss of heart, I’m afraid, will be more dire than Viet Nam ever was. There is nothing more dangerous to the safety and security of the free world than Islamic fundamentalism and what we do (or don’t do) in Iraq and Afghanistan will determine the fate of the world!

On January 28, 2005 the United States gave the gift of democracy to Iraq. For the first time in history, a muslim country has a democratically elected government. But what have we done really? I think we haven’t changed a thing other than give the Iraqis another form or tyranny. This one much more insidious than the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussain.

I think it’s safe to say that most people in the world today consider the United States to be a democracy. Why wouldn’t they? After all, citizens of the United States think they’re living in a democracy. Our president even stated in a television interview that “we’re giving democracy to Iraq.” And truth be told, the United States is probably closer to a true democracy now than we ever were and never were intended to be!

In developing the framework for the new nation, our founding fathers voted on the form of government our country would have. Democracy was on the table and it was voted down in favor of a republic. Consider these definitions from the Merrium-Webster Dictionary of Law:

Democracy
Function: noun

1. a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2. a political unit that has a democratic government

Republic
Function: noun

1. a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2. a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

They sound very similar, don’t they? A democracy and a republic are not only dissimilar, they are antithetical. The distinction is found in who “rules.” In a democracy, the majority rules to the exclusion of the individual and the minority. A republic is governed by the rule of law…in our case, established by a constitution. The law protects the minority and the ultimate minority is the individual. The law maintains liberty and keeps the majority in check.

Our constitutional republic required strict limitations on government power. The only powers permitted were those defined and delegated by the people. The democratic process was limited to the election of our leaders and was not used to grant special privileges to any group or individual, or for defining rights.

Our founding fathers cherished liberty–personal (individual) liberty–and therefore favored a limited government. Our system of checks and balances was essentially supposed to cripple our government to ensure the preservation of personal liberty. There was no doubt as to where our right to liberty came from–our Creator. And with that in mind, understand that if the government could not grant rights, they certainly couldn’t take them away.

Our constitutional republic was designed to protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. In fact, our founding fathers feared democracy as much as a monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court and a handicapped legislature.

The colonists recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered. Favoring instead, an economic system based on private ownership of capital–a free market (capitalism).

So what happened?

Remember, in a democracy there’s centralized power (controlled by majority opinion). A democracy favors big government and social welfare. In contrast, our republic was decentralized, with government power strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership.

It was the ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, that led to the passage of the 16th Amendment which imposed an income tax on the American people and gave birth to the welfare state. As long as this amendment is in place, we’ll never restore our republic. The personal income tax is more than a symbol of democracy, it’s a predictable consequence. How else can the majority pay for it’s excesses?

Now, majority opinion has become the determining factor in all that our government does. The rule of law is pushed aside and our marketplace, once driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership and sound money has been undermined with the acceptance of true democracy.

Unfortunately, too many people confuse the democratic election of leaders of a republic for democracy by accepting the rule of the majority in all things. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing, but its quite different for majorities to decide what rights are (for example, privately-owned land that can’t be touched because it’s been categorized a “protected wetland”), to redistribute property (income taxes), to tell citizens how to manage their personal lives (hello, Patriot Act) and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars (Iraq).

Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflation and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians.

The majority rule in our country and they can do whatever they please. Do you doubt this? Consider the issue of “gay rights.” Homosexuals are a minority in our country, representing less than 1% of our nation and yet this is one of our most intense political issues. Propelled by the propaganda machine of this “special interest” group, our government is writing protections into law and considering “minority status” for homosexuals as if homosexuality was an ethnic designation. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

This is tolerated because its done in the name of benevolence, fairness and equality. The pretense of love, compassion and fairness has allowed the departure from the republic and the erosion of our liberty has gone unnoticed.

As the demands of the majority become greater, taxation alone can’t provide for them. Therefore control of the monetary and banking system is required for the democracy to operate. Enter the Federal Reserve (established in 1913). (incidentally, this was actually the year the USA took a dramatic shift toward democracy–in 1913, the personal income tax and popular election of senators were both instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionalist).

Counterfeiting is a crime, but the Fed does it legally because the government must pay for the ever-increasing needs of the majority. Central-bank money creation–a departure from the gold standard–causes currency debasement through inflation of the money supply. The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses.

Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930s: This was a series of works programs, wealth redistribution schemes (Social Security), and new regulatory bodies, designed to bring us out of the Great Depression (which it didn’t–if anything, it kept the recession going far longer than any previous recession in American history). The “New Deal” was the government taking advantage of it’s citizens by playing on their fears. Instead of allowing individuals to participate in their free market–to voluntarily interact and cooperate through what should have been a relatively short recession–the government increased taxes and spending in an effort to solve our economic problems. The “New Deal” was, in may ways, the end of our free market economy and the adolescence of our welfare state.

Once a nation becomes a democracy, the purpose of government changes. Instead of the goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality, micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves and all their activities.

The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once this undermining is realized, its too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty.

Still don’t understand the danger of democracy? Imagine a one-world government existed and the United Nations was controlled by a one man/one vote philosophy. The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that the United States is working hard to impose on itself and the rest of the world.