Debate Club

Was The Iraq War Worth It? >

'Biden Plan' Is the Most Realistic Solution in Iraq

The "democracy" mission in Iraq served primarily as a justification for U.S. forces

November 11, 2011

About Daniel J. Gallington:

Daniel Gallington is the senior policy and program adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute in Arlington, Va. He served in senior national security policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Justice, and as general counsel for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

On balance, the answer is "no," but not for the mostly political arguments that continue to be made. Instead, here are the specific reasons affecting our national security directly:

9/11 response? The "right" response to 9/11 was strategic--an immediate, massive, and sustained attack against Afghanistan and the "ungoverned regions" of Pakistan. Paid for, literally, by the Saudi Arabian government, because of its historical relationship and financial support of the radical factions giving rise to Osama bin Laden, his followers, and the 9/11 attacks. Iraq, assuming it had a WMD program, was a legitimate "concern" at the time, but not the primary one.

[Condoleezza Rice Should Have Quit Over Iraq War]

Decision to invade? Nevertheless, we should defer to the Bush administration's determinations made on the then-available intelligence; this because it was a consensus determination of intelligence services around the world, not just a "slam dunk" finding on our part. So, despite the internal politics, finger-pointing and "20/20 hindsight" of the decision to invade, it was probably the "right" thing to do at the time; i.e., George Bush and the senators who voted to "authorize" the war were "right," and those who opposed it, including then Senator Obama, were "wrong."

After Saddam, and no WMD? Leave Iraq (except for some key strategic bases/functions) and support it's division into three, "semi-autonomous" regions: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd. This was later called the "Biden Plan," after then Sen. Joe Biden.

Remaining for "democracy"? The "democracy" mission in Iraq served primarily as a justification for U.S. forces to remain after Saddam was dead and the WMD issue was settled. Rather than invest politically in this "new mission," we should have acknowledged that we were going to stay until we determined that the region was less, or no longer, dangerous for our national security.

[Is the United States Safer 10 Years After 9/11]

Paying for it? The war was paid with borrowed money because we would have not supported a 10-year war if we had been required to pay the "current" taxes necessary to sustain it. The "human" costs are immeasurable, and particularly painful to the regular, reserve, and National Guard units supporting multiple combat deployments over the past 10 years.

After we leave? Iraq will revert quickly to its traditional tribal and religious based "system" of pervasive corruption. Iraq is not a "country," never has been and never will be--this despite the billions we spent there on "democracy"--the "Biden Plan" is still the most realistic political "solution" there.

Tags:
Saddam Hussein,
Iraq,
Iraq war (2003-2011)
Other Arguments
#1

No — Expensive, deadly effort did not make the U.S. any safer

PHYLLIS BENNIS, Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies

#2
#4

Yes — Arab culture is not the problem; absence of rule-of-law is

MICHAEL RUBIN, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

#5

Yes — Hussein ordered the deaths of more people in the Middle East than any leader since the Mongol invasion

JAMES PHILLIPS, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation

#6

Yes — The Iraq war freed the world of a dangerous, determined, and irrational leader

ABRAHAM SOFAER, George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Crowdfunding Zack Braff's Film And Robert Griffin's Gifts Is a Mistake

Rich people don't need donations from the public.

Poll Shows Americans Find Obama's IRS Story Barely Believable

There is still something fishy about the scandal at the IRS.

Do Benghazi, AP and IRS Scandals Reflect Obama’s Leadership Style?

It may be that a flawed leadership style is filtering down to the rest of the government.

In Marine Umbrella Incident, Republicans Still Deny Obama Is President

Umbrellagate is more proof that Obama's critics cannot acknowledge that he is, indeed, president.

Obama Isn't Nixon, but Needs More Friends in Washington

President Barack Obama needs to make more friends in Washington.

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.

Advertisement