EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
To Live Within Our Means, Let's Leave Iraq Like We Promised
The Senate and the Roman People have declared that the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
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 U.S. 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 $1.2 trillion in debt reduction over ten 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 come up with the $1.2 trillion, including bringing the troops home sooner than the Pentagon wants.
The money the Pentagon plans to use to keep U.S. 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 U.S. 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 $100 billion to keep 10,000 troops deployed in Iraq for ten 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.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllThe military budget of this country needs to be drastically reduced.
The massive Pentagon expenditures (some "black," i.e. hidden from the public), the wars, and the US military bases all over the world are ruining this country.
Mr. Naiman's heart is undoubtedly in the right place but he should realize that the political leaders of the United States believe it is the manifest destiny of this nation to control the resources of other countries through military means. Perhaps the main difference between the two major parties is that someone like McCain will have no hesitation in announcing that U.S. troops should remain in about 100 countries in perpetuity while a Democrat like Obama will claim that the United States will have its troops on the soil of other countries but they will only be there temporarily which would seem to be the equivalent of saying that the check is now in the mail.
Given the smoldering and open rebellions and unrest in the part of the world where Iraq and Iran are located it would be a colossal blunder of the political leaders of the United States to violate SOFA-Iraq. Such a violation will be a huge political and moral victory for the leaders of Iran who will tell the people of Iraq: "we told you that you cannot trust the United States to ever keep agreements its presidents have signed". Will President Obama commit such a blunder? Given the short time span left to get the "United States Forces" out of Iraq before December 31, 2011 it is all but sure that he will unless he commits every tank, every troop transport, every plane, every camel, to get the USF into Turkey, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, and every troop transport vessel available to him if these countries say: "no way, Sir" and he will have to do the leaving through Al-Basra. Of course it will be much easier if he leaves every tank, every car, every truck, every cannon, all rifles, all machine guns, all rockets, every toilet, all ammunition, a.s.o., a.s.o. behind on the huge U.S. bases and the docks of Al-Basra.
We can't leave Iraq until AIPAC tells us we can - and that will be when we are bled dry. The only way to extricate ourselves from this horror is to dissolve Israel, and force Zionists to pay reparations worldwide for the harm they have done.
I see nothing wrong with leaving these troops in Iraq.
I do, however, think they should stop receiving money and supplies.
Wouldn't that be something?!!!!!!!!! All those faux patriot camouflage green neighbors of mine here in Colorado from the nearby military bases. They say they're all pumped up and always! But what about if they truly were a 'volunteer military' and not just a paid killer one? As true volunteers they certainly would love the tanning they would get in the hot Baghdad sun, wouldn't they? Sure they would!
Yes, and pay Iraq for repairs and reparations.
We still owe Nicaragua reparations for when Ronnie tried to saboutage that country. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama have yet to pay one cent on that.
"the Pentagon is laying plans to keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq forever. They call these troops "trainers," so we are not supposed to notice."
Wow, another lame article by Naimen. Not unlike the corporate media he makes no mention of the private contractors in Iraq. And in the case of Afghanistan the number of contractors has doubled in recent years. The war contractors are a private army paid for by the U.S. taxpayer to support the corporate imperial occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan, or rather Pipelineistan. More public debt for the private profits of both the contractors and Big Oil.
Cover-Ups and New Designs for the American “Occupation” of Iraq
http://www.ncciraq.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&lang=en
"There are already more than 100,000 private contractor employees stationed in Iraq, of which at least one-tenth are mercenaries. The US government aims to replace many of the withdrawn American soldiers by contracting even more private mercenaries in the coming months. In fact, the US State Department plans to increase the number of its contracted mercenaries in Iraq from 2,700 to 7,000 for its department alone. These mercenaries will be based in five “enduring presence posts”—which may serve as permanent military bases.
Some Iraqis refer to the American embassy in Baghdad as “Bush’s Palace.” It rivals the size of Vatican city, stretches across an area equal to 70 football fields, and is visible from satellites. This complex structure—along with the thousands of personnel required to operate and safeguard it—clearly signals that the US government has no intension of withdrawing from Iraq by 2011."
GONZO: Excellent points. You only left out one thing, that just as private industries cost & charge more than comparable government services, these mercenaries are paid at least 5X what the average conventionally enlistened person is paid. So right there we see "the numbers" grossly inflated to suit the profiteers of doom. War profits should be illegal; and would be, were a nation's leaders interested in any remote premise of LAW. Of course it's a lot cheaper to purchase politicians, along with media, and that way control opinion and perception in order to manufacture consent.
And they're fighting for our freedoms... how quaint. They must be on search missions to locate them, too, since most of us are wondering where they went.
GONZO and Sioux Rose. It does not matter how much these so-called "civilians" are paid. If they fall within the definition of the "civilian associated component" of the United States Armed Forces (see Article 2 sub 1 of SOFA-Iraq) as I believe they do they too must be out of Iraq no later than December 31, 2011. If President Obama continues to pay these "civilians" through the Pentagon or the CIA for their "services" after that date he will violate a U.S. law (SOFA-Iraq), a "misdemeanor" for which he should not only be impeached but removed from office also.
We still have troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Kosovo.
Mr. Naiman, if you had made the effort to consult SOFA-Iraq you would have discovered where your analysis is slightly incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2. Definition of Terms. 2. "United States Forces" means the entity comprising the members of the United States Armed Forces, their associated civilians, and....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. 1. All the United States Forces (see above!) shall withdraw from all of Iraq territory no later than December 31, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: first notice the "all"-"all" in Article 24. Next it does not matter how Mr. Obama re-names "members of the United States Armed Forces" they must be out of Iraq "no later than December 31, 2011" unless Mr. Obama succeeds in obtaining and signing a new (revisions of the existing SOFA-Iraq are no longer possible; it is too late for that) SOFA-Iraq. "Trainers" remain members of the United States Armed Forces hence must be out too. Furthermore all "associated civilians" which has been interpreted everyone on the direct or indirect payroll of the Pentagon must be out also. Wow, that will be akin to the Jews leaving Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Mr. Obama is lucky that he does not need to ask his God (Allah I assume is too risky in that part of the world) to part the Persian Gulf to allow the United States Armed Forces to perform a mad motorized dash from Iraq to Saudi Arabia on December 31, 2011!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the confusion about "combat forces" has been fostered, perhaps even deliberately, by misinterpretations of Article 24 sub 2 in which it is stipulated that "combat forces" shall withdraw from Iraqi cities no later than June 30, 2009. That has nothing to do with Article 24 sub 1 It is clear that you have not fallen into that trap but from time-to-time we read that crap again in the MSM or hear it in statements from politicians. If Mr. Obama believes that taking out the so-called "combat forces" only satisfies Article 24 sub 1 he is sadly mistaken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I once again point out that 10,000 U.S. "trainers" means one U.S. trainer for every about 14 soldiers of the armed forces of Iraq! The army of Iraq is obviously in danger of becoming "over-trained". They may get "training-fatigue" soon!
Another, empire rapidly caving from within, due to bloated ,overextended military actions, worldwide. Seems a familiar scenario.
We should take a hint from the British. Originally they opposed giving up their empire. Then they did a 180. The reason was that the UK could no longer afford to keep its empire. The US can no longer afford to keep its empire.
In addition to ending these foreign wars (Officially called police actions) we should also end the war on drugs and treat drug abuse the way that we treat alcohol abuse. It's a health and not a legal problem, unless a crime is committed.
'Like we promised"? Get real, Mr. Policy Director guy! 'We' had nothing to do with making any decision one way or the other.
Unfortunately for me and you the people of Iraq will make no distinction, and rightly so, between me, you, and the President of the United States of America. Whether I like it or not, President Bush signed SOFA-Iraq also in my name and yours. And that's the way it is.
US debt increases exponentially with the number and intensity of its wars. A large amount of money ends up into private pockets. Although much recirculates back home, its not enough of a general economic boost to increase government income through taxes, to repay growing government debt. War profiteering corporations get government largesse, and avoid government taxes. Fossil fuel corporations and their upper management avoid taxes. Rich shareholders avoid taxes. For the overtaxed lower population base, the costs of living increase from limits to growth. Foreign resource acquisition by military means is costly, temporary, and whatever resource benefits are gained go to corporations that avoid taxes. Jobs and manufacture stay overseas.
So if withdrawal from Iraq occurred as "promised", the effect would be a net cost gain to the US government, but only if the US stops paying for those occupying forces, by terminating their employment, and stops paying for the equipment, and those that look after it, and abandons billion dollar bases. The more likely result is that the mobile military resources will be moved to be used in some other tax dollar sink hole.
Afghanistan and Iraq are conjoined twins of US middle east strategy. It seems that both were desired, incubated and born at the same time. In some twisted manner, both are deemed essential for whatever long term great power game war strategy the US persues, including the encirclement of Iran. In this manner, the US finds it hard to abandon either one, for then it is effectively required to abandon both. This increases greatly the amount of military layoffs expected, and a major recession in military corporate industry. Those vested interests in the great war scams control the US government and will not allow it. They would rather escalate the wars into full blown conflicts with yet more nations.
It looks like Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Libya, have the unenviable task of draining the US empire of blood and money until it collapses onto its knees low enough to be properly beheaded. To avoid the empire getting up and creating more mayhem elsewhere, as it now does in Libya, and clandestinely elsewhere, it is important that its money, energy and delusions continue to be soaked up by the sacrifice of these nations. The wars and occupations must continue until the US is economically and socially dead.
Other folks have covered the other flaws in this article, so I'll stick to the last sentence.
Can we PLEASE stop referring to a "Tea Party" as if:
A) The name makes any sense whatsoever.
B) Such a group actually exists.
It is easy you just write "so-called 'Tea Party' Republicans" instead of "Tea Party".
America will never leave Iraq, she will continue to have a base there as she does in Japan, Korea and the many other countries around the world. Iraq is now hers, she will be a force to reckon with for eternity. The same goes for Afghanistan, those people will never be free of America. Does anyone think that those two behemoths she has built, one in Iraq and one still building in Afghanistan are really embassies alone? Give me a break. When America puts her boots on the ground, she never leaves. Except maybe in Vietnam, but she will never make that mistake again.
There are two fundamental differences between Iraq on the one hand and Japan, Korea, and Afghanistan on the other. In the case of Iraq there is a U.S. law (SOFA-Iraq) which gives us a weapon to demand the impeachment and removal from office of the president if he violates it. The second difference is that the "international community" almost certainly will consider our nation to be at war with Iraq on January 1, 2013 if president Obama violates SOFA-Iraq. Then every Iraqi soldier (or civilian in uniform) can legally kill U.S. soldiers and mercenaries as Al Sadr has threatened his militia will. And leaving only 10,000 soldiers behind in a large and very unfriendly nation is not exactly being a "behemoth". That is asking for trouble. Eventually the combined cost of all U.S. wars occupations, and "semi-occupations", even after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been grandly raped, will be such a great drag on the U.S. economy and budget that the empire-project will have to be greatly scaled down if not abandoned. One sign that Washington is beginning to realize this is the shift from war-making by "boots on the ground" to "drones in the air". Drones are expensive to produce but they do not need a salary, do not need to eat and drink, and do not need to be clothed. In the long run the drone-war is cheaper than the boot-war.
"In the case of Iraq there is a U.S. law (SOFA-Iraq) which gives us a weapon to demand the impeachment and removal from office of the president if he violates it."
a stroke of genius by junior!
Good points Siouxrose. It is difficult to say it all brief post.
And those overpaid mercenaries do not pay taxes on their income when they are operating outside of the U.S. And on a larger scale, corporations like Halliburton have subsidiaries in places like Dubai to avoid paying taxes on their profits based upon mismanaged tax dollars. And many of the big contractors have been caught engaging in fraudulent billing, but Congress took no action.
And think of the cost of an enlisted American soldier in Afghanistan at one $Million per man for one year, and if the fellow gets killed there is a $400,000 death benefit. And for those who are injured, body and or mind, they will be on disability and medical care for the rest of their lives.
And someone needs to do the $math on how deficit war spending is weakening our economy and thus the tax base. $Trillions I would imagine.
End tax breaks for the super-rich and corporations, end offshore banking tax evasion, end the corporate imperial energy wars, and cut the overall "defense" budget (at least by 60%) and we would be able to balance the Federal budget and have national health care and affordable higher education, and increases in S.S. (actually Congress stole our money), and support for clean/green energy among other things. Subsidizing solar for every home in American would be much more sane than subsidizing corporate imperial oil and natural gas wars.
The military also burns up huge amounts of global warming oil in their efforts to open more oil and natural gas regions for the criminal oil corporations resulting in the burning of more hydrocarbons and more CO2 emissions. Etc.
typo...say it all in a brief post