Out of Iraq is Not Enough

Like many of her Democratic colleagues, Senator Diane Feinstein is calling for a time line to exit Iraq. This is not enough. The longer we stay, the more Americans are killed and the greater the burden on the American taxpayer and the U.S. military. As we have seen recently with the recall of former marines who had been honorably discharged the military is stretched too thin. Were the U.S. to face a genuine crisis, not the made up one of Iran, we would not have the resources to adequately deal with it. The sooner the U.S. leaves the more secure the American public is from an attack by perhaps North Korea or to deal with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The only purpose in staying in Iraq is to postpone admitting that we have lost the war. Eventually we will have to leave but how many of our soldiers will have to die before we leave.

But even if we were to leave before the end of this year, it would not be enough. Senator Feinstein and others have argued that we must keep troops in the area, Kuwait among other places. This is asking for trouble. As long as our troops are stationed in Muslim countries, we will be subject to assault. When we had troops in Lebanon, Hezbollah staged a suicide bombing that killed 241 of our soldiers. Even though our marines were in Somalia to bring peace and humanitarian supplies to the people, they were waylaid and forced out. In 1996, Osama Bin Laden issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to drive the Americans out of the holy lands of Saudi Arabia. His expressed purpose for 9/11 was to force our retreat from the land of Mecca.

Although it is especially important to remove our forces from Muslim countries, it would be a good idea if we brought them home from other overseas bases as well. Why do we need troops in Germany? The Cold War is over. Why do we need troops in Japan? Is it to intimidate the Chinese or North Koreans? The presence of our soldiers in Okinawa is greatly resented by the local population. Moreover, having soldiers in these countries breeds resentment by people in nearby countries that feel threatened.

Terrorists have not attacked Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, or many other nations that have no military presence in the Muslim world. The fable that Muslims are attacking us because they don’t like our democracy or freedoms implies that they should be bombing Stockholm or Geneva, which are less protected and easier to attack than New York City or London. But those cities and nations have little to fear and are not threatened by al Quaeda.

This does not mean that the U.S. should become an isolationist state. Isolationism originally was reflected in the rejection of the League of Nations. Pulling back our troops to our own land would have no implications for our participation in international bodies such as the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization and so on. Moreover, with the budget savings that a less aggressive foreign policy would make possible, we could provide greater help to poor countries and those suffering from AIDs or from natural catastrophes. Being the globe’s strongest economy, and having a smaller military budget would strengthen the nation, would still give us a great deal of influence in the world. In fact, not being a threat to other nations would likely increase our sway with other nations.

Unfortunately, there is tendency for powerful countries to want to exercise their power and, as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the late 18^th century and early 19^th century, Britain became the world’s major power and created a huge empire. The U.S. today has close to absolute power. As a result the temptation is compelling to impose our will on others, always in the name of freedom or democracy. By the end of the 19^th century America was becoming a major power and starting to flex our might. As Stephen Kinzer showed in Overthrow: America’s century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq the U.S., starting in the last decades of the 19^th century, began to exert its power on weak countries. The U.S. has been building an empire, but without direct rule. We just put our “son-of-a-bitches” in power.

Unfortunately a lot of people feel a patriotic urge to “fly the flag” around the world. Resisting the temptation to interfere militarily in other countries would be hard. Can it be done? I am an optimist and believe that if we scaled back our military to a level that would allow us simply to defend our shores, the U.S. might become the “city on a hill”. We could wind up with more influence than we can achieve through simple military might. We would also have a more peaceful globe.