The Politics of Iraq in 2008 Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

NSN’s President Rand Beers testified before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on the costs of Iraq to our national security.  It’s worth a read.

On a related point, it seems like a pretty gross strategic miscalculation to me that Republicans are suddenly welcoming a debate on Iraq.  In the last week Senate Republicans surprisingly decided to open up a debate on the issue, and John McCain went after Obama over AQI. The last time I remember Republicans welcoming a debate on Iraq was in June of 2006 where they thought they could label the Dems as “Cut and Run.”  Instead 39 of 44 Democrats actually got behind the Levin-Reed Amendment, which became the basic outline of the Democratic Iraq plan in the 2006 election, while Republicans just repeated “cut and run” until they were blue in the face. 

A debate on Iraq didn’t work then for Republicans and it won’t work now.  I understand why they want to do it.  They don’t have much choice.  McCain was one of the faces of the surge.  And on top of that they can’t run on the economy (in shambles), healthcare (no plan), energy (no plan and oil at $103 per barrel).  Even yelling boogh boogah over terrorism seems to be losing some of its appeal as Democrats are standing up on FISA.

As Michael pointed out earlier this week, the public is completely against the war and that hasn’t changed.  The Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that they can sell this reduction in violence, but the response is pretty obvious and it’s to put everything in the broader strategic context.  Something along this line from Rand’s testimony:

The cost of the war in Iraq in terms of lives and treasure has been tremendous: nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed; 30,000 American serviceman and women have been wounded; and according to a report released by this committee, the American economy has already incurred $1.3 trillion dollars in costs - a sobering $16,500 per family of four.

What has that spending bought us? Diminishing respect for America around the globe; the reconstitution of our terrorist and extremist enemies; and the over-extension of our military and diplomatic capacity. In Pakistan and Afghanistan Al Qaeda and the Taliban have regained their strength and now operate with impunity. In the broader Middle East, Iran has been let out of its strategic box and now wields greater power. The war has severely overstretched and depleted our military, leaving us vulnerable and unable to respond effectively elsewhere. Freedom and democracy around the world have slid backwards, as American moral authority has been tarnished and our ability to mobilize others to meet global challenges and the needs of our citizens has been undermined.

Comments

[Zathras]

Senate Republicans may be thinking in terms of how feeble Senate Democrats have been in their critique of Bush administration policy in Iraq. They haven't dwelt much, for example, on the cost of the war as Beers does here. Senate Democrats have been more likely to repeat dopey arguments like the one made here every now and again, that the surge is failing because Iraqi politicians aren't reconciling.

[Jake]

It's time we had a debate about the real costs of this adventure:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/three-trillion-dollar-iraq-war-stiglitz.html