By Christine Ostrosky, ostroscm@miamioh.edu
President Obama made a commitment to the American people that he would not entangle the nation in another ground war in Iraq. However, he is toeing the line of this declaration. President Obama should honor his commitment to end the loss of American lives in Iraq throughout his presidency.
Unfortunately, the forecast seems bleak for this promise. To aid the Iraqi forces, President Obama has already ordered the deployment of 1,600 troops to Iraq since June. Additionally, the possibility of American troops engaging in ground combat is increasing: President Obama has already consented to allowing American military advisers to consult with Iraqi commanders at their headquarters. He is also receiving pressure to allow Special Operations units to assist Iraqi forces.
Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted that he believes troops on the ground in Iraq are the "appropriate way forward."
Though President Obama has repeatedly said that he does not want to authorize a combat mission, General Dempsey has publicly stated that that will be his recommendation if the situation calls for it.
Too many lives have been lost in Iraq. America has already overextended itself into a region whose wars and politics do not directly affect it. The Islamic State poses no real organized threat to America. The worst potential effect of a collapsed Iraq would be economic: a spike in oil prices. However, America buys most of its oil from Canada and Latin American nations, so the economic burden for individuals would be less than one might think. However, another war with Iraq could require a hefty increase in federal taxes to extend the defense budget. American tax dollars would fund the Iraqis' war.
Withdrawing and then re-deploying into Iraq is a move that would not only risk American lives but also American reputation. Many already view the war in Iraq as less than a success; going back in for a second try will make it all the more shameful to return home again.
American refusal to deploy troops to Iraq would not be a sign of weakness. Instead, it would be a sign of restraint and prudence from a military giant that often forgets its strength. Though America tends to serve as a global policeman, it may be time to step down from that role. Instead, America could use the resources to focus on internal affairs, and preparing defenses for serious, organized threats to homeland security.
Perhaps the most grave aspect of the issue at hand is the real cost of another ground war in Iraq. It is impossible to know how many lives have been lost or people wounded due to American military interventions in Iraq. President Obama must decide if he is willing to risk more innocent American and Iraqi lives for a war that does not involve America, as General Dempsey will advise him to do.
President Obama took credit for the total withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011, which was the formal end to the war in Iraq. Though he recently denied that this was his decision, it would be wise to remember that American troops withdrew for a reason. America has overextended itself as the policeman of the region, and should better focus its resources on legitimate threats or domestic issues.
Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter
Read More
I played every New York Times game for a week
By Meredith Perkins | 2 days agoColumnist Meredith Perkins ranks the New York Times games after playing them all each day for a week.
Fascinating, weird and dangerous: Oxford experiences once-in-a-lifetime solar eclipse
By Whitney Wilson-Harris | 5 days agoThe solar eclipse was a momentous event, but for some students with disabilities it posed unique, and possiby dangerous, situations.
Desire paths are for sheep
By Lilly McClelland | April 9, 2024You are not a trailblazer for taking desire paths. You are not staging a silent rebellion. Rather, these pathways, more strongly than sidewalks, represent the absence of freedom from industrial control.