By Eric Anschutz
Our country has many problems, but there are four that top the list: the war in Iraq, the budget deficit, the possibility of nukes in Iran, and global warming. Each of these “Four Horsemen†carries the prospect of apocalyptic consequences; opinions will differ only on their order of importance. Let us examine each one, and consider what might be done.
Iraq
The war is costing us some $9-10 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 daily. Iraq’s leaders are unable to put together an effective government, and centuries-old intra-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.
President Bush has for two years been summarizing his Iraq “strategy†this way: “We will stand down when the Iraqi soldiers are sufficiently trained to take over.†Two years is a long time to train soldiers. 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. Young Iraqis are just as trainable. They are for some reason, however, just not willing to fight, possibly because they resent the overwhelming American military presence, and possibly because by working with their American counterparts they are seen by the populace (and maybe by themselves) as disloyal or even traitorous.
Most Americans have concluded that “staying the course†will not work; three years of ever-more 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; more than 40,000 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 our homeland decidedly less safe.
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. I would urge President Bush to make a victory speech, one that he could present to roars of approval at a joint session of Congress, to acclaim by most Americans, and to sighs of relief from most of the world. Here is the essence of what the President might 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 now ordered our forces in Iraq to begin withdrawal, as soon as logistic and security arrangements can be made. We will, after our withdrawal, provide all reasonable non-military assistance to the Iraqi government and to its people, including financial assistance in 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.â€
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. Because of our massive deficit, resources are inadequate for education, infrastructure rebuilding, medical care, port security, scientific research and countless other domestic needs. Here is a three point plan designed to return our country 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:
• Bring our troops home from Iraq; that single action would cut our deficit ($400 billion this year) by half. Abolish the tax cuts currently in place for the wealthiest among us. Restore the estate tax for bequests over $2 million.
• Restore the “pay-go†budget enforcement tool, first established in 1990, but allowed to expire in 2002. This pay-go rule, which requires that 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.
• Close the tax gap – the difference between the amount of taxes owed and the amount actually paid. The tax gap (a staggering $350 billion annually) is money owed by corporations and individuals under the current tax laws that goes uncollected, either due to a failure to pay, including actual tax evasion , or a failure by the IRS to collect.
Iran
No one is comfortable with the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s fiery president. But, faced with a choice between a nuclear-armed Iran, and a US military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the responsible choice would be to accept the former. Iran with nukes could be contained by deterrence – just as we deterred the Soviet Union (with more than 10,000 nuclear bombs, all aimed at us) for 50 years. We have learned to live with the idea of nuclear-armed North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. All of them are deterred from first-use against us, or against one of our allies, by the prospect of nuclear retaliation.
A US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities brings no certainty of success. Iran’s nuclear facilities are mostly deep underground, and their locations are not all known. More importantly, such an attack against Iran would be sure to unleash retaliatory attacks against us. Iran’s Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei has warned: “If the U.S. ventured into any aggression on Iran, Iran will retaliate by damaging U.S. interests worldwide twice as much as the U.S. may inflict on Iran.” Iranian officials have also threatened to cut oil production, export nuclear technology, bar international nuclear monitors, make their nuclear program entirely secret, and withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
With all this saber-rattling, we are not even certain that Iran is in fact working toward building nuclear weapons. Indeed, they deny such aspirations. Iran asserts that its uranium enrichment program, entirely legal under the terms of the NPT, is only to provide low-enriched uranium for their electric power reactor currently under construction. The problem is that the centrifuge technology which Iran has built (so far on a very small scale) for that legitimate peaceful purpose, could, if greatly expanded, be used to create highly enriched uranium, which could then be used for bomb-building. So, what we have here is a matter of judgment about intent. Given the less than sterling performance of our intelligence community on such matters, the administration’s worst-case assessment of Iran’s intent and its capability is not in my mind a basis for starting a new war – one that almost certainly will bring the same kind of unexpected and ugly surprises that are giving us such agony in Iraq. Remember, too, that Iran is some three times as big as Iraq, not exactly a pushover when it comes to fighting on their turf. And, again, what would be the exit strategy, and how would the rest of the world react?
The answer here is to use all diplomatic means to win Iran’s agreement to abandon uranium enrichment of any kind and on any scale. One way that (amazingly) has not been tried is direct talks between the US and Iran, the offering of some carrots, and the cessation of all statements about regime change. We have every reason to dislike and distrust Iran’s leaders, but dislodging them by military means could only be done at a price most Americans would not be willing to pay.
Global Warming
Global warming may bring with it the prospect of apocalyptic outcomes even greater than those that could result from wars or bankruptcy. Sea levels will rise as the polar ice cap melts, and coastal cities will lose low-lying communities as they become submerged. Because there will be less snow, water shortages are sure to result, which will adversely impact agriculture. Hydroelectric power will be reduced as less water cascades over our dams. Forest fires will be on the increase because our forests will be drier. Hurricanes will be more powerful and more devastating as ocean temperatures rise.
The answer, of course, is to reduce greatly our use of hydrocarbon fuels, thereby lessening erosion of the ozone layer, which in turn reduces the greenhouse effects that reflect radiated warmth back to the earth, further increasing temperatures worldwide. Reduced dependency on hydrocarbon fuels can only be achieved in two ways: (1) conservation and (2) the use of alternative fuel technologies. Here is a brief look at each of them:
Conservation
Legislate higher taxes for gasoline, thereby making conservation and the use of alternative fuels cost effective for consumers. Subsidize public transportation, thereby making it more available, more comfortable to use, and less costly. Mandate more efficient car engines, including hybrid and plug-in electric.
Alternative Fuel Technologies
Create a 21st Century Manhattan Project aimed at developing alternative fuels, including ethanol, hydrogen, and diesel. Ethanol shows the greatest near-term promise, especially cellulosic ethanol derived from such things as switchgrass and waste products from farming and forestry. Cellulosic ethanol shows greater promise than corn-based ethanol, because it requires far less energy to produce and emits fewer greenhouse gasses. Detroit already makes cars capable of running on 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
Generate electricity for our cities with something other than hydrocarbon fuels. Wind turbines, solar farms, roof-top solar cells, and nuclear power stations need to be aggressively developed, made safer and less costly, and deployed.
The True Meaning of National Security
When will we learn? Despite the clear case for a national agenda based on these or similar proposals, political leaders will find it difficult to gain support for it. To get that support, we must first bring about a tidal shift in the way Americans think about security. As I have written before, real security is not achieved with more guns; it is not realized through policies of preemption; it is not brought about through disdain for the UN and traditional allies when they question our policies. Nor is security 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 decency in the use of great power.