Despite Budget Impasse, US Military Will Get Paid…to Stay in Iraq Indefinitely

To date, failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the American taxpayers trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, as the budget debate in Washington reaches its eleventh hour, politicians seem all too willing to ignore the most excessive and ineffectual line item in our budget – 48 percent set aside for defense spending.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates did make a “reduced budget request” for 2012, although the “spending cuts” he’s requesting will be offset by increases in other areas of defense spending. The bottom line shows that Gates’ budget request still comes to $553 billion — the largest in real terms since World War II. Of course, 700 bases in 130 different countries are expensive, and active engagement in a handful of costly wars that require expensive weapons, equipment and reconstruction projects don’t come cheap. For the record, The Sustainable Defense Task Force has developed a report which shows the United States could slash $1 trillion from it defense budget over the next 10 years, but I digress…

Now Mr. Gates is saying that some troops may stay in Iraq for years. In his farewell tour of greater Mesopotamia, the Defense Secretary remarked that the US and Iraq would have to negotiate the terms of any American presence, while admitting that he had dreamed up at least a couple scenarios that might keep American forces in Iraq, perhaps indefinitely.

Before an audience in Mosul, Gates stated:

“That would be part of any negotiation, whether it be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp-down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role as we have in a number of countries.”

Of course, maintaining a troop presence in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline authorized by the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) would have dramatic political consequences, both in Washington and Baghdad. Before ramping up our presence in Afghanistan, holding military tribunals on Gitmo and carpet bombing Libya, President Obama actually campaigned on his promise to dial down American forces in Iraq, as soon as he moved into the White House. One can only assume the president is not anxious to disappoint his voting base, again. His counterpart, the ever-unreliable Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is facing mounting pressure from within his political marriage-of-convenience, as Muqtada al-Sadr continues to demand the end of American troops presence. However, while violence is down in Iraq,  bombings and other attacks continue across the country, while ethnic tensions in the north appear to be mounting.

The good Sayyid Sadr is now hoping to capitalize on PM Maliki’s weakness by ditching his sectarian robes for the trappings of populist unity. As regional tensions rattle Iraq’s fragile democracy, the Sadrists declared themselves in favor of a freer press in a sympathetic nod to mounting protests in the streets. If Maliki’s position worsens, look for the firebrand cleric to make more appearances beside opposition leader Iyad Allawi, while urging his followers to join the mostly secular demonstrations.

As Iraqis join Arab neighbors to demand genuine political change, their parliament seems built to collapse. Assembled on a flimsy ethno-confessional, power-sharing agreement, a US decision to extend its stay could capsize the Sadr-Maliki coalition, and sink their ruling bloc. Given these stakes, Congress should regard the decision to exit Iraq as an exercise in ease and stick to the plan. While Iraq is unable, currently, to defend her skies, gather adequate intelligence or use the sophisticated American weaponry we’ve donated at tax-payer expense, the political jeopardy ensured by an indefinite US troop presence would prove even more perilous in Baghdad.