Time to leave Iraq.

[wiggin]

Eh, none of the people in charge was formed by cooperation with the US. On average they were in their late 40s by the time the US-Egypt channels were opened. Hosni Mubarak, the most pro-US member of the Egyptian government for over 32 years was trained in the USSR.

The high command wasn't trained by the US for the most part (though some of the general staff did go to the US for further training IIRC), but they have spend the last three decades working closely with the Pentagon. Mubarak is of the old guard and very much didn't internalize any lessons from the US military, mostly because he's been on the political side almost the entire time we've had close ties to them.

That being said, my point about training was more directed at the lower ranks of the officer corps as Loki mentioned; they're the people who get the real work done, and they're also the people who set the tone for the military.

[Nessus]

Promoting democracy (against the wishes of the dictators in which we'd want to promote it) is nothing less than a global crusade that is both costly and antagonistic to large chunks of the world (including the democratic parts, who consider the exercise to be one of the imperialism).

I think we have a confusion of terms here. Finland's foreign policy promotes democracy, we broker deals and lend support and so on. But for obvious reasons we can't be world policemen; we can't project any force. And frankly I'm not opposed to that situation, our one go at being colonialists didn't go too well. For us or the peoples being colonized.

Either way, I'd argue the terms are separate and shouldn't be used interchangeably.

Of course you can just respond that Finland could say their foreign policy promotes turning the Moon into cheese for all that we can actually accomplish, but I'm not sure how true that is.

[wiggin]

The converse, though, Nessus, means that even engaging with those who are not democracies doesn't mean we don't 'promote' democracy. To the contrary; the US has been one of the most vocal supporters of democracy, free elections, human rights, etc. We just also deal with non-democracies.

[Nessus]

And I didn't imply otherwise, I was objecting to Loki's claim.

[wiggin]

Fair enough.

[Loki]

I think we have a confusion of terms here. Finland's foreign policy promotes democracy, we broker deals and lend support and so on. But for obvious reasons we can't be world policemen; we can't project any force. And frankly I'm not opposed to that situation, our one go at being colonialists didn't go too well. For us or the peoples being colonized.

Either way, I'd argue the terms are separate and shouldn't be used interchangeably.

Of course you can just respond that Finland could say their foreign policy promotes turning the Moon into cheese for all that we can actually accomplish, but I'm not sure how true that is.

That's not what Americans means by promoting democracy. What do you to do if a dictator doesn't allow you to promote democracy in their country?

[Nessus]

That's not what Americans means by promoting democracy. What do you to do if a dictator doesn't allow you to promote democracy in their country?

Propaganda and hopey wishey stuff. What do you do? Send in guns? That only happens after shit hits the fan.

Also

What do you mean by "Americans" here?

[Loki]

Propaganda and hopey wishey stuff. What do you do? Send in guns? That only happens after shit hits the fan.

Also

What do you mean by "Americans" here?

The person I was responding to (GGT). Seriously, you say you want to give money to some media group or NGO inside of a dictatorship, but the dictator doesn't allow it. What do you do? Do you cut off aid? Weaken trade ties? Cut off diplomatic relations?

[Nessus]

The person I was responding to (GGT). Seriously, you say you want to give money to some media group or NGO inside of a dictatorship, but the dictator doesn't allow it. What do you do? Do you cut off aid? Weaken trade ties? Cut off diplomatic relations?

I said that?

[Loki]

Eh? My point is that those are the tools that Americans who want to promote democracy think the US should take (I'm not counting the ones who want to spread democracy through force). I'm sure you can see how that view is inconsistent with not being the world's policeman.

[Being]

Nessus is GGT?

[Nessus]

Eh? My point is that those are the tools that Americans who want to promote democracy think the US should take (I'm not counting the ones who want to spread democracy through force). I'm sure you can see how that view is inconsistent with not being the world's policeman.

And surely you can see this is a piss-poor way of defining the term "promoting democracy".

[Loki]

And surely you can see this is a piss-poor way of defining the term "promoting democracy".

Is that really relevant to me pointing out that GGT was making a contradictory argument?

[Nessus]

Is that really relevant to me pointing out that GGT was making a contradictory argument?

Either the wording or the reasoning behind your pointing was flawed, and so long as this isn't just about besting GGT it has some relevance to the discussion.

[Dreadnaught]

You know, at some point, the means no longer justify the ends. It's all nice and well to try to prevent Iraq from becoming more chaotic, but we know we have very little chance of success, while the cost of ongoing operations is certain. We shouldn't be doing things just because we feel an obligation to do them, especially when the odds of success are incredibly low. If 8 years isn't enough to resolve the problem using our methods, 13 or 18 years won't help either.

I'd argue we've made a lot of progress, and that progress will have more of a positive lasting impact than if we cut-out now.

[Loki]

I'd argue we've made a lot of progress, and that progress will have more of a positive lasting impact than if we cut-out now.

Tell me what progress we can realistically expect in 5 years if our troops stay.

[Dreadnaught]

I think the main positive outcome has been quelling the sectarian violence. We are left with a [weak] ally in the region, instead of an ally totally wracked by a de-facto civil war that would likely be a terrorist breeding ground for people who think we broke their country.

It sounds like you're talking more generally about the value of going to war in the first place, not the value of investing in keeping the peace.

But, also generally, I do think morality does come into play. Just like it did before the invasion.

[Loki]

I think the main positive outcome has been quelling the sectarian violence. We are left with a [weak] ally in the region, instead of an ally totally wracked by a de-facto civil war that would likely be a terrorist breeding ground for people who think we broke their country.

It sounds like you're talking more generally about the value of going to war in the first place, not the value of investing in keeping the peace.

But, also generally, I do think morality does come into play. Just like it did before the invasion.

There's less sectarian violence because most of Iraq has been ethnically cleansed (i.e. Sunni in Shia areas have been killed/forced out and same for Shia in Sunni areas). The places where you see ethnic conflict today is in ones where ethnically cleansing hasn't been finished yet (e.g. Mosul).

A) You didn't really say how the American troops today are preventing the violence.
B) You didn't mention the fact that the whole point of stopping the violence was to allow the political system to mature. The latter simply hasn't happened. In fact, Iraq is still classified as not free/not a democracy by both of the major democracy datasets (Polity IV and Freedom House), with no real improvement since 2006-2007.
C) Why do we spend at least $50 billion and keep tens of thousands of troops for the sole purpose of lowering the level of violence in Iraq (which given A, isn't really working)? There are plenty of other places where we could be doing more good at a cheaper cost.

[Dreadnaught]

I would argue the surge, the Sunni Awakening and the political co-opting of Shia played a big role in calming things down. We also demonstrated that we're willing to step-up our presence to control the situation, which does play a role in keeping various ethnic extremists in check.

Is it worth the cost? I argue it doesn't matter at this point, we have an obligation to do what it takes to not leave Iraq a total mess.

[Loki]

I would argue the surge, the Sunni Awakening and the political co-opting of Shia played a big role in calming things down. We also demonstrated that we're willing to step-up our presence to control the situation, which does play a role in keeping various ethnic extremists in check.

Is it worth the cost? I argue it doesn't matter at this point, we have an obligation to do what it takes to not leave Iraq a total mess.

Again, you're looking at the past, not the present. Do we have any reason to think that if we left, the situation would end up significantly worse than if we didn't? There's been no attempt to turn the military gains into political ones. At this pace, we'll need to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, and the place simply isn't worth it.

That's not a very good reason. We could come up with "obligations" to help an awful lot of places. It ultimately comes down to whether the troop presence works and whether it's cost-effective. I don't think either is true about Iraq (and even less true about Afghanistan). Just because we want something to work doesn't mean it will work.

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, to the extent that we've demonstrated that we'll step-up forces to maintain some semblance of order. And our "obligation" in this case has a pretty obvious prioritization given that we invaded the place and deposed their dictator.

[Loki]

Yes, to the extent that we've demonstrated that we'll step-up forces to maintain some semblance of order. And our "obligation" in this case has a pretty obvious prioritization given that we invaded the place and deposed their dictator.

And do we have forces there for the sake of having forces? Again, none of the political goals are being met (in fact, there's backsliding). At this pace, we'll need to stay there indefinitely. Is that the course you think we should take?

Even if we had an obligation, it was more than extinguished by 2007. We provided order, we allowed for a free and fair election to take place. We encouraged the political process. Doing anything more, in the face of stonewalling by Iraqi politicians, is unprecedented and unnecessary. Should we be allocating a ridiculous amount of resources to Iraq with the full knowledge that they're not contributing toward a viable long-term solution? I don't know about you, but I could think of plenty more productive uses of $60 billion a year (and probably at least as much per year for Veteran's Affairs down the line).

[wiggin]

First it's $50 billion, now it's $60 billion? Total spending in the proposed budget for 'overseas contingency operations' including State Department costs is something like $125 billion. Given that Afghanistan is far more expensive than Iraq currently, I'm betting Iraq costs no more than $30 billion or so right now, dropping more as we pull troops out. Long run VA costs are very misleading since they mostly have to do with already committed spending from wounded years ago rather than spending on troops who get wounded in Iraq now (a very small number comparatively given their much reduced role in the country).

[Loki]

First it's $50 billion, now it's $60 billion? Total spending in the proposed budget for 'overseas contingency operations' including State Department costs is something like $125 billion. Given that Afghanistan is far more expensive than Iraq currently, I'm betting Iraq costs no more than $30 billion or so right now, dropping more as we pull troops out. Long run VA costs are very misleading since they mostly have to do with already committed spending from wounded years ago rather than spending on troops who get wounded in Iraq now (a very small number comparatively given their much reduced role in the country).

The first number was an estimate. I then looked it up and it was $61 billion in 2010 (Afghanistan was $63 billion).

Considering that there are far more wounded from Iraq than from all military operations combined since Vietnam, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that VA costs will escalate sharply.

[wiggin]

The first number was an estimate. I then looked it up and it was $61 billion in 2010 (Afghanistan was $63 billion).

Very much a high estimate. In 2010 we had just started our Iraq pullout to 50k troops by the latter half of the year, and we had a lot of pullout-related costs. So: some ongoing combat operations, moving tens of thousands of troops (and related equipment) home, etc. At the same time, the Afghan surge was just ramping up (the order came in late 2009, but we didn't get to full strength until late 2010). 2011 is the first year with the lower number of Iraq troops restricted to non-combat roles, and the higher intensity of an Afghan campaign at full strength. Also, Afghanistan has always been more expensive on a per-troop basis given the costs of moving fuel and supplies around the country.

Considering that there are far more wounded from Iraq than from all military operations combined since Vietnam, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that VA costs will escalate sharply.

Yes, VA costs will probably go up. But will they go up even more as a result of an ongoing presence in Iraq, or are they going to only slightly increase further? You've said it yourself - you're not talking about the past, but about the present and future. Presently, very few US soldiers are killed or wounded in Iraq.

[Loki]

Erm, the $61 billion was an actual figure: http://www.defencetalk.com/afghan-wa...pentagon-18679

Having people in hostile combat zones is going to deteriorate their mental and physical health, whether they're killed or not (or even whether they're wounded or not), especially considering the length of the deployments.

[wiggin]

I'm not disputing your 2010 figure, I'm disputing your projection of $50-60 billion for the future. I was explaining why Iraq cost $61 billion in 2010 but I predict it will cost half (or so) in 2012.

I don't think our troops in Germany or SK cause so much higher lifetime cost than troops in Arkansas (even when Germany was on the front lines of the Cold War). True, stresses are higher in Iraq (and they don't bring family along), but they're going down. As Afghanistan winds down, I wouldn't be surprised if deployments were shortened as well.

[Loki]

I'm not disputing your 2010 figure, I'm disputing your projection of $50-60 billion for the future. I was explaining why Iraq cost $61 billion in 2010 but I predict it will cost half (or so) in 2012.

I don't think our troops in Germany or SK cause so much higher lifetime cost than troops in Arkansas (even when Germany was on the front lines of the Cold War). True, stresses are higher in Iraq (and they don't bring family along), but they're going down. As Afghanistan winds down, I wouldn't be surprised if deployments were shortened as well.

And you can't think of better things to spend $30 billion a year on? Or a more productive way to use tens of thousands of ground troops?

[wiggin]

And you can't think of better things to spend $30 billion a year on? Or a more productive way to use tens of thousands of ground troops?

That's the debate you were having with Dread; I just disputed your numbers. (Actually I think long-run costs of further involvement in Iraq will be less than $30 billion/year. Most analyses I've seen are looking at a 'residual' force in Iraq of only 20-25k troops with even more limited roles in security, which should reduce our costs even more.) We maintain bases around the world at pretty high cost, but it gives us a lot of flexibility and leverage in our responses to global crises.

I see both your points, tbh. Indefinite involvement in Iraq probably doesn't further many US policy goals. On the other hand, we do have a bit of a historical duty here given our role in destabilizing the country, and it doesn't cost that much in the long run. Furthermore, I think an argument can be made that continued US presence there doesn't just give us some leverage; it also gives us an opportunity to positively influence the development of a functioning Iraqi democracy. Obviously it's going to be a long haul to get things to work effectively in Iraq, but our presence might lend enough stability for them to make a decent try at it. If such an outcome can be achieved, it's completely worth it.

(I'm much more skeptical that our involvement in Afghanistan can have such a long term result, but I don't think that's our strategic goal their either, so I'm fine with continued involvement.)

[Loki]

That's the debate you were having with Dread; I just disputed your numbers. (Actually I think long-run costs of further involvement in Iraq will be less than $30 billion/year. Most analyses I've seen are looking at a 'residual' force in Iraq of only 20-25k troops with even more limited roles in security, which should reduce our costs even more.) We maintain bases around the world at pretty high cost, but it gives us a lot of flexibility and leverage in our responses to global crises.

I see both your points, tbh. Indefinite involvement in Iraq probably doesn't further many US policy goals. On the other hand, we do have a bit of a historical duty here given our role in destabilizing the country, and it doesn't cost that much in the long run. Furthermore, I think an argument can be made that continued US presence there doesn't just give us some leverage; it also gives us an opportunity to positively influence the development of a functioning Iraqi democracy. Obviously it's going to be a long haul to get things to work effectively in Iraq, but our presence might lend enough stability for them to make a decent try at it. If such an outcome can be achieved, it's completely worth it.

(I'm much more skeptical that our involvement in Afghanistan can have such a long term result, but I don't think that's our strategic goal their either, so I'm fine with continued involvement.)

We've been in Iraq for 8 years. That's simply unprecedented for a country trying to rectify a past mistake (as is the cost).

Even $20 billion a year is a pretty damn high price to pay for some marginal influence over Iraqi politics. I think people are losing perspective of what billions of dollars are given the current US deficit. You're also assuming anyone will take us seriously once our troops no longer play a combat role. Our influence has already sharply fallen in anticipation of the end of that role. How far did our influence go in creating an Iraqi government in timely fashion? Or to prevent the current government from clamping down on protesters (and parties supporting them)? Sorry, but if the Iraqi government consolidates power, autocracy is at least as likely an outcome as democracy. To say that any amount of resources should be used to achieve one good outcome (which doesn't even have a high chance of success) is simply irresponsible. We have a finite amount of resources. We have to use them productively.