BOOK REVIEW The case for
withdrawal Exiting Iraq: Why
the US Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the
War against al-Qaeda by Christopher
Preble
Reviewed by David Isenberg
Cutting and running is bad. One should stay the
course. Unless one is chief civil administrator in Iraq
L Paul Bremer, of course, in which case one can hop on
a jet plane two days ahead of schedule and start
negotiating a book deal.
Nevertheless, despite
the enormity of America's political failure in Iraq,
just about everyone says that the US military forces,
approximately 140,000 at present, must stay to provide
security and ensure stability. Even liberals who should
know better buy into this argument. For example, the
Washington, DC-based Center for American Progress,
founded by former Bill Clinton administration officials,
issued a paper on June 28 recommending increasing the
troop level of the multinational force to improve
security.
Well, almost everyone that is. Enter
the Cato Institute, a Washington, DC think-tank which
advocates libertarian policies. On June 30 it published
the book Exiting Iraq: Why the US Must End the
Military Occupation and Renew the War against
al-Qaeda. The book, the product of a special task
force of 10 foreign policy experts, calls for the
expeditious withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. This
process, they argue, should begin now that the new Iraqi
government has taken power, and end no later than
January 31 next year, the time of nationwide elections.
According to task force director Chris Preble,
director of foreign policy studies at the institute, the
invasion of Iraq has been bad for America. "We're worse
off in two senses: We've weakened ourselves militarily
and by diverting resources." He noted, "Neo-cons love to
quote Teddy Roosevelt's famous saying about carrying a
big stick, but always manage to neglect mentioning the
first part of it, which is to speak softly."
The
point of the book is straightforward. A long-term
military presence in Iraq undermines the very goals that
the US hopes to achieve there. "It emboldens
anti-American terrorists to expand their operations,
both against the forces in the neighborhood and
ultimately on American soil. And the presence of an
American military garrison in Iraq weakens the forces of
democratic reform by undermining an indigenous
government's authority and credibility."
According to the book, the US requires only
three things of the new Iraq. Do not threaten the US; do
not harbor anti-American terrorists; and do not develop
weapons of mass destruction. If you don't everything is
fine. If you do, then the US will be back. Or, as the
book puts it, "We're out, and we are not responsible for
your security. But we'll be watching you."
While
the second requirement might seem overtaken by current
events, the book notes that Iraq is serving as a model
recruiting ground for radical Islam and global jihad. It
notes that "[Osama] bin Laden's struggle against the
United States now resonated with tens of millions of
Muslims. The danger posed by such resonance increases as
the American occupation of Iraq continues and images of
humiliation and oppression are broadcast around the
globe."
Task force member Charles Pena, director
of defense policy at Cato, said, "Iraq has weakened
America in the world. We're significantly worse off -
radical Islam has spread."
No matter how one
parses it, the costs for continued US military
occupation are high. An analysis released June 25 by the
US Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs of
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other
operations associated with the global "war on terrorism"
in three different scenarios.
In the most costly
scenario, current force levels would be maintained in
Iraq and other locations through 2006. After that force
levels would gradually decline to about 69,000 personnel
by fiscal year 2010. The budget required would total
about US$392 billion over the 2005-2014 period.
In the next-most costly scenario, the occupation
force in Iraq would increase to 190,000 service members
for the 2005-2006 period and then decline so that all US
forces would be removed from Iraq by 2009.
According to Pena, "Short of a large scale
occupation we can't fix what is broken, whether it was
by Saddam or the US."
Given that the Bush
administration some time ago substituted establishing
democracy as the new rationale for invading Iraq, once
it was clear there were no nuclear, biological or
chemical weapons to be found, the book is succinct on
what can be expected on that score. "The prospects for
creating a liberal democracy in Iraq are bleak; the
ambitious goal of creating even a stable illiberal
government certainly cannot be achieved in the near
term." In fact, such an effort "could foster the very
type of political situation that the United States was
aiming to avert by going into Iraq in the first place;
namely, the creation of a hostile, unstable, Islamist
government in the heart of the Middle East."
To
the book's authors, an American withdrawal would be a
boon for conducting anti-terror operations against
al-Qaeda and similar groups. They note it would allow
the US to refocus its military and intelligence assets
on the fight against terrorists who seek to murder
Americans.
The book observes that a continued
occupation of Iraq will further stress an already shaken
military force. For example, the issuing of stop-loss
orders last November to prevent military personnel from
leaving the service when their enlistments run out means
that thousands of men and women won't be able to leave
until the spring of 2005 at the earliest. About 40,000
had their enlistments extended against their will for
some period of time in 2003. According to Pentagon
officials, as many as 19,000 troops were coved by such
orders when figures were released in April 2004.
Exiting Iraq: Why the US Must End the
Military Occupation and Renew the War against
al-Qaedaby Christopher Preble. Publication Date:
June 2004, ISBN: 1-930865-64-3, price: $15.00, 96 pages.
David
Isenberg, a senior analyst with the
Washington-based British American Security Information
Council (BASIC), has a wide background in arms control
and national security issues. The views expressed are
his own.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
which case one can hop on
a jet plane two days ahead of schedule and start
negotiating a book deal. 
