What you reap is what you sow ; Or, Doug Bandow advises Howard over Iraq

Dear Readers–

As John Howard has seen fit to intervene in the American presidential campaign with his unwanted advice on when the Americans withdraw from Iraq – it is only fair that the Americans return the favour.

In today’s Australian, Doug Bandow of 4pundits.com says that “Howard should reject any Cheney request  [for more troops] : Far from increasing troops to Iraq, Canberra ought to start withdrawing”. He points out how wrong Bush (and Howard) have been:

Those who blundered into Iraq naturally attempt to avoid refighting the decision to invade. However, it is worth remembering how wrong the Bush administration was regarding Iraq.

Every WMD claim was incorrect. Allegations of an al-Qa’ida connection proved equally false. Instead of tossing candies and flowers, many Iraqis began shooting at allied forces. None of the supposed milestones, such as Saddam Hussein’s capture and national elections, brought peace. The one-time secular society increasingly has turned to sectarian leaders. Opposition from a few supposed “dead-enders” has morphed into a widespread civil conflict.

The promised benefits of invading Iraq proved equally illusive. By plunging Iraq into chaos, the US empowered Iran, the region’s most threatening power. By turning Iraq into a cauldron of violence, Washington discredited democracy. By employing the usual brutal tactics to combat guerillas, the US turned ever more Iraqis into adversaries. By showcasing Americans killing Muslims, the US provided al-Qa’ida with a free televised recruiting campaign.

Mr Bandow goes on to cast doubt on the achievability of “victory”:

The central question is, what is victory? Does anyone seriously believe that the US (backed by Australia and a handful of other nations) is likely to create a liberal, Western-style democratic system in Iraq?

Unfortunately, the insurgency prospers largely because so many Iraqis have come to hate the US, in particular. A majority of Iraqis say that attacks on US forces are justified and want US troops to leave. Another 21,000 Americans, and a few hundred Australians, won’t make a significant difference.

Total forces will remain far below the number indicated by current anti-insurgency doctrine, developed in part by David Petraeus, newly entrusted with the war effort.

Should the allies at least stay until they defeat the “terrorists”, meaning al-Qa’ida and other foreign fighters? This group would most quickly be wiped out in a pure Iraqi civil war. The foreigners have been drawn to Iraq to attack Americans and won’t last long once US forces disappear.

In short, there is little good that Washington, with or without Australia’s assistance, can do by staying. But would “cutting and running” effectively “surrender to the terrorists”?

….

Further, rising violence and declining pro-US sentiment in Iraq make withdrawal inevitable. The administration’s escalation will merely postpone the inevitable – while resulting in more deaths, maimings, and injuries. More troops, US and allied, will have to die for the mistakes of their political leaders.

Today, at least, Washington and Canberra can disengage under their own power while retaining a semblance of dignity and hoping that a reasonably friendly regime survives in Baghdad. If they wait, they risk being forced out. The former would harm their reputations, but the damage would fade over time. The latter would have a catastrophic impact.

Mr Bandow concludes by pointing out a number of reasons for Australia to refuse more troops and to withdraw its forces. For instance most of the other coalition members have already left; Australia’s small contribution of troops has no practical impact even if it were to be doubled; that Australia has other interests closer to home and “and there undoubtedly will be additional failing states to patrol” ; furthermore many Australians think that the Howard government is too subservient to a discredited and unpopular Bush government.

Mr Bandow also has another more ascerbic article in The American Spectator expressing his irritation at allies who expect the Americans to remain in Iraq “irrespective of the costs–and the fact that they are sharing little or none of the burden!” In this article he points out the fallacy behind the “per capita” defence that is espoused by Liberal Party shills:

Howard naturally defended Australia’s contribution. Adjusting for population, however, it is about one-seventh the size of America’s garrison. Moreover, Canberra has no other global and few other regional military commitments.

Washington maintains hundreds of thousands of soldiers in
Europe, Japan, and South Korea; tens of thousands more are afloat in carrier groups and other ships that traverse the globe. Many more are based in America, awaiting deployment abroad in an emergency.

The U.S. devotes twice the share of GDP as does Australia to the military. Roughly 2.5 million Americans serve in the active and reserve forces, in contrast to 71,000 Australians; the U.S. rate of service per population is about 2.5 times as great. In 2005 Americans spent $1675 per person on the military. Australians spent half as much.

Moreover, Washington is seen by everyone everywhere as the military guarantor of last resort. If the Iraq war is to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, it is up to America. If anyone can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, it will be the U.S. If diplomacy ultimately fails with North Korea, Washington will be expected to take the lead. If Russia resorts to force against one of its neighbors in the Baltic, Caucasus, or elsewhere, America may find itself at war. If China acts aggressively against Taiwan, Taipei’s emergency call will go to Washington. If the Philippines ends up in a scrape with Beijing over the Spratly Islands, Manila will look far away to the U.S.

If Australia finds itself facing military aggression from Indonesia or China, Canberra will press Washington for aid. Only in this case would Australia likely be involved, standing by America’s side.

Allies can be useful, but only if they are willing to back up shared interests with manpower, money, and other resources. Advice is cheap, especially when it is Americans who are doing the dying.

Yours sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.