Will the weak economy end the Iraq War?

by Andre

Hello again.

I recently read an interesting title posted in an article by the folks at TIME. The article purported to deal with the idea that the same economic recession which most of us have become caught up in could end the Iraq War. After filtering through the usual wartime fluff, some figures were thrown in to give credence to the article’s supposed theme. Something along the lines of $200 billion spent on the Iraq/Afghanistan occupations with a predicted total cost of at least $2 trillion (factoring in interest payments) if the wars should continue until 2017. One would think this is a lot of money for a country with a $10 trillion debt which recently passed a $700 billion inevitability-delaying bailout package. It should be noted how this number is dwarfed by the additional dollars that are being tossed onto the fire in hopes of suffocating the mess before the whole thing goes up in smoke.

Can a severely battered economy really be the reason for the end of an occupation?

TIME suggests that in its current state, the impending depression is not strong enough of a force to clear Iraq of coalition forces. But that the rotten salad consisting of a “gloomy intelligence assessment of that country’s political prospects, growing demands for U.S. reinforcements in Afghanistan, and the elected Iraqi government’s insistence on a withdrawal deadline” may suggest that the end is coming into view. The reasoning behind this seems sound enough to me. I don’t think the economy will ever be part of any official, government sanctioned excuse to leave the disputed territories. The only acceptable exit strategy that will leave the American people feeling warm and patriotic inside is one that insists the democratically elected Iraqi government is comfortable running the country on their own. A pricey evacuation parade would surely follow.

Regardless of whether or not the economy is a primary catalyst for retreat, it will never be advertised as such. Pulling out could be seen as losing, and losing a war based on the domestic meltdown of capitalistic foundations wouldn’t look favorable to the ruling party (republican or democratic). So instead, the pullout will be one of Iraqi or Afghani “desire”. The recent removal of North Korea from the state sponsors of terror list due to their, this time, genuine intention to disassemble their nuclear facilities is a possibility of this phenomenon as well. Why fight an axis of evil when it would be cheaper to fight the Evil-Duet in Iraq and Iran or ultimately the evil-doer in Iran.

TIME is left barely scratching the surface of this fascinating question.

The title TIME used to bring the reader in did its job. Sadly the support in its content had little weight attached to it. Many wars have ended because of economic reasons. Ultimately, that’s the only way a determined resource fueled war ever ends. You just won’t hear these reasons come from within the machine that produces the mess. It is because of this ongoing government rhetoric that TIME is left barely scratching the surface of this fascinating question. It is for this reason that I am left grasping as well.