What To Do About Iraq Whoever gets elected in 2008 is basically screwed. This is a correlary of the idea that there is no near-term solution for the problem we find ourselves facing in Iraq. If a democrat wins in 2008 and pulls out, Iraq turns into terrorist haven heaven and the democrats look really bad - much worse than Bush does now. If a democrat wins and 2008 and "stays the course", then, as things get steadily worse and steadily more taxing to the budget, it only re-enforces the idea that democrats are the party without any ideas.My in-laws recently asked me what I'd do about Iraq now. I suggested there are two basic choices and that there have always been two basic choices - and they are one extreme or the other. Either withdraw completely and use the $200 billion (or $1 trillion - the long-term cost estimate, where long term is something like 5 years from now) to fund alternative energy sources (in preparation for the eventual disruption of the oil supply and/or being screwed over by emerging anti-west regimes) and anti-terrorism intelligence efforts; or go in whole hog and remake Iraq. Require all rebuilding contracts be filled by Iraqi-owned companies, get 1 million+ troops into Iraq to safeguard the rebuilders, and pour your Western/Liberal heart-and-soul and money into making Iraq a real democracy.Going the middle road, IMO, guarantees failure and still costs more than we can afford.Going all in also costs more than we can afford, and when this whole thing started, this was my primary reason for being against the war - we can't afford it and it will cost us dearly in economic terms. One of these days, we're going to hit a crisis point and we won't have any padding in our savings to deal with it - instead we've decided to rack up enormous debt during the good times. When the bad times come, we'll have nothing to fall back on. That is the basic reason why our high debt is bad - it's not because it's too high to manage, it's because we won't have any borrowing room when things turn bad. And things always turn bad.Going all in also has the downside that it would mostly likely fail too. So, you've spent more than you could afford and failed anyway. Not good. Does that mean complete withdrawal is our best choice? It may be our least bad choice - or perhaps least catastrophic is a better way to put it. Yes, withdrawal would turn Iraq into a warzone, where Iran, Syria and Al-queda might struggle for dominance. Iraq might become the new terrorist haven that Afghanistan was. The sudden cessation of American pressure would probably free up a lot of bad people to do bad things.But consider: we already need to protect the homeland - the whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" argument is bullshit: terrorists are more than capable of fighting everywhere. Additionally, by fighting them over there we're fighting them someplace where A) they can win and B) they gain momentum for their cause amongst the previously non-terrorists. Eventually that momentum will catch up to us as the increased number of al-queda recruits means increased attacks all over the globe, not just in Iraq. The war also serves as a distraction from efforts to protect the homeland. $200 billion goes toward body armor and vehicles and training the Iraqi army, etc - which is an opportunity cost with regard to what might have been accomplished with that money and manpower were it spent in intelligence (not to mention hurricane relief efforts).A sudden release of American presence and pressure would be like Glasnost for terrorists - suddenly allowed to run amok, they most certainly would do just that, and the resulting mayhem would rival the collapse of communism in Russia. However, to unreflectively believe that such a result must be avoided at all costs is irrational - obviously there are costs we should not be willing to pay. We are paying dearly in opportunity costs, and in the long-term we will pay dearly in terms of degrading security as terrorists gain in strength from this conflict. We could pay the latter cost up front by withdrawing, and mitigate the downsides by redirecting our money and manpower to better intelligence and homeland protection and energy self-sufficiency (or at least sufficiency from trusted parts of the world).It's a bitter pill to swallow, though. Not only is the danger involved in withdrawal very real, not only does it leave the Iraqi people in a terrible position on their own, it would even damage America's reputation a little bit further than it already is.But at least we'd survive relatively intact as a nation. As it is, when I say I believe we can't afford this war, I really mean we can't afford this war.

Whoever gets elected in 2008 is basically screwed. This is a correlary of the idea that there is no near-term solution for the problem we find ourselves facing in Iraq. If a democrat wins in 2008 and pulls out, Iraq turns into terrorist haven heaven and the democrats look really bad - much worse than Bush does now. If a democrat wins and 2008 and "stays the course", then, as things get steadily worse and steadily more taxing to the budget, it only re-enforces the idea that democrats are the party without any ideas.

My in-laws recently asked me what I'd do about Iraq now. I suggested there are two basic choices and that there have always been two basic choices - and they are one extreme or the other. Either withdraw completely and use the $200 billion (or $1 trillion - the long-term cost estimate, where long term is something like 5 years from now) to fund alternative energy sources (in preparation for the eventual disruption of the oil supply and/or being screwed over by emerging anti-west regimes) and anti-terrorism intelligence efforts; or go in whole hog and remake Iraq. Require all rebuilding contracts be filled by Iraqi-owned companies, get 1 million+ troops into Iraq to safeguard the rebuilders, and pour your Western/Liberal heart-and-soul and money into making Iraq a real democracy.

Going the middle road, IMO, guarantees failure and still costs more than we can afford.

Going all in also costs more than we can afford, and when this whole thing started, this was my primary reason for being against the war - we can't afford it and it will cost us dearly in economic terms. One of these days, we're going to hit a crisis point and we won't have any padding in our savings to deal with it - instead we've decided to rack up enormous debt during the good times. When the bad times come, we'll have nothing to fall back on. That is the basic reason why our high debt is bad - it's not because it's too high to manage, it's because we won't have any borrowing room when things turn bad. And things always turn bad.

Going all in also has the downside that it would mostly likely fail too. So, you've spent more than you could afford and failed anyway. Not good. Does that mean complete withdrawal is our best choice? It may be our least bad choice - or perhaps least catastrophic is a better way to put it. Yes, withdrawal would turn Iraq into a warzone, where Iran, Syria and Al-queda might struggle for dominance. Iraq might become the new terrorist haven that Afghanistan was. The sudden cessation of American pressure would probably free up a lot of bad people to do bad things.

But consider: we already need to protect the homeland - the whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" argument is bullshit: terrorists are more than capable of fighting everywhere. Additionally, by fighting them over there we're fighting them someplace where A) they can win and B) they gain momentum for their cause amongst the previously non-terrorists. Eventually that momentum will catch up to us as the increased number of al-queda recruits means increased attacks all over the globe, not just in Iraq.

The war also serves as a distraction from efforts to protect the homeland. $200 billion goes toward body armor and vehicles and training the Iraqi army, etc - which is an opportunity cost with regard to what might have been accomplished with that money and manpower were it spent in intelligence (not to mention hurricane relief efforts).

A sudden release of American presence and pressure would be like Glasnost for terrorists - suddenly allowed to run amok, they most certainly would do just that, and the resulting mayhem would rival the collapse of communism in Russia. However, to unreflectively believe that such a result must be avoided at all costs is irrational - obviously there are costs we should not be willing to pay. We are paying dearly in opportunity costs, and in the long-term we will pay dearly in terms of degrading security as terrorists gain in strength from this conflict. We could pay the latter cost up front by withdrawing, and mitigate the downsides by redirecting our money and manpower to better intelligence and homeland protection and energy self-sufficiency (or at least sufficiency from trusted parts of the world).

It's a bitter pill to swallow, though. Not only is the danger involved in withdrawal very real, not only does it leave the Iraqi people in a terrible position on their own, it would even damage America's reputation a little bit further than it already is.

But at least we'd survive relatively intact as a nation. As it is, when I say I believe we can't afford this war, I really mean we can't afford this war.