On the Thinker

As we approach the sixth anniversary of the Iraq War, the Obama Administration has revealed its plan to withdraw U.S. troops and end our combat mission by August 31, 2010. The President announced that 50,000 troops will remain in a support role until December 31, 2011. Democrats in Congress largely disapprove of President Obama's plan, while key Republicans such as John McCain (R-AZ) think the plan is fair. Regardless of the political response, the President's announcement illustrates an important reality for voters that may not appear obvious; regardless of the campaign promises and the political slogans, regardless of the unpopularity of the previous administration's policies, a president will almost always listen to his commanders on the ground and respond practically and realistically.

While it would seem like Obama the pragmatist has really changed course from his predecessor, recent history proves otherwise. President Bush, whom Obama had called previous to his announcement, struck a deal with the Iraqis for a phased withdrawal that would have removed most combat troops from Iraq a little later than 18 months. Having secured the presidency, Mr. Obama has extended his campaign promise for a withdrawal by two months and decided to keep 50,000 "support" troops in Iraq until the end of 2011. Yet, political rhetoric aside, these young men and women will be in combat, and they will continue to die in combat. The President's plan largely hinges on the Iraqi government's ability to maintain functioning schools, electricity and water facilities, and economic infrastructure.

There are currently 142,000 troops in Iraq. At the time of this writing, the Department of Defense has confirmed the deaths of 4,251 American soldiers there, with over 30,000 wounded. Most analysts project the Iraq War will cost the U.S. over $2 trillion in total. Admittedly, President Obama's plan is certainly a step in the right direction, but we should not be fooled by the politics that are ever-present in the speeches of our elected leaders.

Regardless of what the administration says, the United States will stay in Iraq or its neighborhood for the forseeable future, which will continue to cost us billions of dollars. The region is politically and militarily unstable and houses some of the most low-cost oil reserves. We have already had a major presence there for some 50 years.

The President has made some admirable proposals to address the domestic effects of the war. In his recent budget proposal, which aims to spend an almost unprecedented $3.6 trillion, he is seeking a 15% increase in veterans funding. The Department of Veterans Affairs has warned that if they are not adequately funded to care for our wounded warriors, we will see an increase in broken families, divorce, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, and preventable suicides. We have a moral obligation to our soldiers to prevent such catastrophes.

Another expenditure often over-looked is known as "reset" in the Pentagon, the reconditioning of military equipment worn down by operations in a combat zone. Many weapons and armor have been destroyed or deteriorated to the point that are ineffective. The Department of Defense will need millions of dollars to fix these weapons of war.

The government is already hardpressed to convince China to continue buying U.S. treasury bonds to fund our stimulus packages and war habits, and the President has already announced that most top-earning Americans will have to shoulder a heavier tax load. Ending the combat mission in Iraq will certainly help us alleviate our strained military and secure our economic futures. However, let us not forget that the President plans to escalate the number of troops in Afghanistan, which will add new strains. Hopefully, President Obama will continue to seek advice from his commanders, his advisers, and the American people to continue his effort to restore confidence in America at home and abroad.