Troop Withdrawal

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.