Richard A. Clarke -- Good Harbor Report
Sept. 27, 2006 -- Just as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld refused to allow the military to call the fighting in Iraq an “insurgency,” so the White House is rejecting the use of “civil war” to describe the Shia-Sunni slaughter that has been taking fifty dead a day. Administration officials also argue that “premature” U.S. withdrawal will result in a civil war. The implication is that we need to keep U.S. combats units in Iraq to prevent a higher level of chaos. Our staying with U.S. combat troops for a few more years, they argue, will allow the Iraqis to improve their security forces and that, in turn, means the chaos will be less when we leave (whenever that is) than it would be if we left next year.
Put aside that some of the Iraqis we are training are the very same Iraqi security forces that appeared to be behind much of the kidnapping, torture, and killing, what the “stay the course” agreement comes down to is this:
-- There is a high level of “sectarian strife” now.
-- If we withdraw U.S. combat forces in 2007 the “strife” will escalate further.
-- But if we stay on to, say 2009, the chaos ensuing upon the departure of U.S. combat units will be less than it would have been in 2007.
-- And that difference in levels of chaos post-U.S. combat unit withdrawal is worth the cost.
That difference in levels of chaos is hard to quantify. It may even be nonexistent, but we can estimate the cost of staying the additional two years:
-- Approximately 1,000 more U.S. dead.
-- Approximately 5,000 more U.S, casualties, many involving loss of limbs or eyes.
-- Approximately $150 Billion in U.S. expenditure.
-- A continued stimulus for recruitment of terrorists as outlined in the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate.
more
READ MORE: Good Harbor Report
