Rantle

By Eric Anschutz, Walnut Creek, CA, April, 2006

I am in anguish about the mounting futility of the war in Iraq. And I feel a sense of despair about the relentless growth of our national deficit. It seems immoral to fight a pointless and counterproductive war, especially when doing so saddles our children and grandchildren with immense but needless debt. I’m not alone in my anxiety; polls tell us that most informed Americans feel the same way. Virtually all Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans correctly pin the blame for these twin disasters on the ineptitude of the Bush administration and the incompetence of the Republican-led congress.

Great opportunity for the Democrats, you say? Think again. Our leaders seem afraid of being labeled “unpatriotic” if they oppose the war. They are afraid to oppose Bush’s irresponsible wartime tax cuts for fear of being tarred as “tax and spend liberals.”

Let’s take a look at these two “hallmarks” of the Bush presidency, in hopes that we can devise a winning strategy for the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

The War

Here are the results of Bush’s “strategy for victory:” The war is costing us some $9 billion every month – more of our soldiers are dying every day – military hospitals are crowded with young men with shattered bodies and wounded psyches – and more terrorists and insurgents are recruited every day. Iraq’s leaders are unable to put together a functioning and acceptable government, and cross-Islamic hatreds are fostering civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. American troops are caught in the crossfire between these growing religious and ethnic tensions, and American diplomats in Iraq are alienating each of the three religious factions against us as they seek to foster moderation and restraint.

Bush for two years has been summarizing his Iraq “strategy” this way: “We will stand down when the Iraqis are able to stand up.” Well, we’ve been trying to train Iraqi soldiers to “stand up” for the past two years – an excessively long training period, especially when their task is primarily guard duty. When I was in the army, some 55 years ago during the Korean War, I (and every other GI) was completely trained and ready to go into battle after 16 weeks of basic training. The same is true today for American soldiers. Though Iraqis are trained in the same way that we were (and are), they are just not willing to fight – possibly because there is not yet a unified Iraq, possibly because they are asked to take up arms against an insurgency comprised of fellow Iraqis, possibly because they resent the overwhelming American military presence (to which Iraqi solders are subservient), and possibly because by working with their American counterparts they are seen by the populace (and may see themselves) as disloyal or even traitorous.

The Deficit

Our deficit, which is growing at the rate of about $400 billion every year, totals $8.4 trillion at this writing, which amounts to some $28,000 per man, woman and child in our country. This is money that our government has borrowed, most of it in the last 20 years. Deficit growth began to explode under Reagan because of his defense buildup and tax reduction; it accelerated under Bush 41, slowed and declined under Clinton, and has gone off the charts under Bush 43. Republicans advertise themselves as fiscal conservatives, but their stewardship of the economy since 1980 has been nothing short of irresponsible.

Bush 43, with his mindless tax cuts for the wealthy and the cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has taken recklessness to the level of criminal negligence. Our children and grandchildren and probably their children will bear the burden of it for decades to come. Annual interest on our national deficit is on the order of $400 billion.

Because of our massive deficit, resources are inadequate for education, infrastructure rebuilding, medical care, port security, scientific research and countless other domestic needs.

Cicero said, some 2000 years ago: “The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.” Astute observation then; especially applicable today.

Iraq: An Alternative Strategy for Democrats

Americans who express dismay about these sad realities are challenged by those on the right to offer viable alternatives to the current Bush strategy. Most Americans have concluded that “staying the course” will not work; three years of bloodshed and hemorrhaging of endless billions of dollars have not brought Iraq closer to unity or democracy or security (or electricity or water or oil revenues or rights for women). By every measure but one (Saddam is gone!), Iraqis are worse off now than before the war (remember too that more than 30,000 of them have died because of our military actions and the ongoing insurgency). Our continued presence fosters and strengthens the insurgency, provides training grounds for terrorists, builds more hatred for America across the Mid-East, further erodes our moral authority in the rest of the world, and makes us less rather than more safe.

Here is a viable position for Democrats: The only action that makes sense for our country, the action that would in the end best honor those who have died or been maimed, is to declare victory and depart. That is the position I would propose for our Democratic leaders – and particularly for our presidential contenders.

Democrats should urge President Bush to make a victory speech before a joint session of Congress. In the unlikely event that he should actually chose to do so, such a speech would be received with heartfelt bipartisan roars of approval, with enthusiastic editorial support from the nation’s media, and with public acclaim. Here is the essence of what democrats should urge the President to say:

“Our mission in Iraq has now truly been accomplished. Saddam is out. Iraq has a democratically elected government. Because of the success of our actions, I have ordered our forces in Iraq to begin a total withdrawal, as soon as logistic and security arrangements can be made. Following our military withdrawal, we will provide all reasonable non-military assistance to the Iraqi government and to the people of Iraq, including financial assistance for reconstruction, to be administered by the United Nations. Our program of assistance, up to a level of $10 billion annually, will continue for a period of at least five years, assuming that the Secretary General of the United Nations certifies yearly its integrity and success. We know that civil strife continues in Iraq, but our experience has shown that containing that strife and bringing unity and security to the Iraqi people is best done by Iraqi leaders, both governmental and clerical.”

The Budget Deficit: A Course of Action for Democrats

In addressing the critical issue of the budget deficit, Democrats must demand that the federal government return to the policies of fiscal discipline and debt reduction that brought economic success in the mid-to-late 1990′s (when President Clinton brought our budget into surplus). Because of the Republican-driven tax cuts for the wealthy, revenues (as a percentage of GDP) are at their lowest level since 1959. Bringing our troops home from Iraq would cut in half this year’s deficit of $400 billion.
Senator Kent Conrad, senior democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, advocates immediate termination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, restoration of the estate tax, restoration of the pay-go, or pay-as-you-go, budget enforcement tool that was first established in 1990, but was allowed to expire in 2002. This pay-as-you-go rule, which requires any new mandatory spending or tax cut legislation be paid for, was instrumental in helping the federal government move from deficit to surplus in the 1990′s.
Senator Conrad also proposes closing the tax gap – the difference between the amount of taxes owed and the amount actually paid. Now a staggering $350 annually, the tax gap is money owed by corporations and individuals under the current tax laws that is going uncollected, either due to a failure to pay – including actual tax evasion – or a failure to collect on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The True Meaning of National Security

When will we learn? As we’ve seen, there is wide support both for ending our military involvement in Iraq and for getting the federal budget under control. Still, a strongly anti-war candidate for President in America may have difficulty winning, even though he or she would certainly command strong support from the Democratic base. For that reason, I believe, our 2008 Democratic candidate, in addition to pressing the Iraq and deficit issues, must focus his or her campaign on bringing about a tidal shift in the way Americans think about national security. As I have written before, real security is not achieved with more guns, policies of preemption, or disdain for the UN or traditional allies when they question our policies. Nor is it produced by tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, true security comes from building an America that leads the world by the example of its moral stature and its domestic achievements, and by its wisdom and decency in the use of great power.