Three out of four National Journal’s National Security Insiders said it would be in the national interest to keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year. A similar majority said they expected the Defense Department's budget and other security accounts to be cut past the amount already outlined by the Obama administration.
The remaining 46,000 U.S. combat troops are slated to leave Iraq at the end of the year, as agreed to in a 2008 pact with Baghdad signed by the Bush administration. The Obama administration has indicated it would be open to leaving some 10,000 troops in Iraq if Baghdad requests an extension--but the Iraqi government hasn't yet decided if it wants the troops to stay. Seventy-three percent of Insiders affirmed it was in the United States’ interest to keep troops in the country.
“A small military presence should be sized to prevent backsliding on progress and to support State Department future activities,” one Insider said.
Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is likely to face a political backlash if he asks for an extension of U.S. presence. But last week, Iraq’s foreign minister hinted at a deal, saying publicly that his country needs U.S. help to train Iraqi troops. “Every senior American officer who has served in Iraq recently seems to share this view,” one Insider said. “Also of import, as sectarian tensions threaten to flare again most Iraqis will see a continued U.S. role as stabilizing, even if some political leaders are reluctant to voice this."
In April, President Obama outlined plans to cut $400 billion in the Defense Department’s budget and other security accounts over the next 12 years, but three-quarters of Insiders said these funds were likely to be slashed even further. Still, there was a split between those who thought the cuts were justified--or simply necessary in this era of intense budgetary pressure.
“Defense must share the burden to build a solid national foundation,” one Insider said in supporting the cuts. Another added: “That is less than a 10 percent cut. There is that much waste in the defense budget.”
Some acknowledged that the Defense Department budget would be cut--albeit with regret. “I think it is a dangerous mistake,” one Insider said. “The danger is that cost savings will drive the strategy, rather than the reverse,” said another.
The pool of Insiders, many with past budget-cutting or policy experience, had suggestions. “Public support for large-scale, manpower-intensive counterinsurgency wars is fast ebbing and thus cuts in expensive ground forces can be made. Pressure is also mounting for DOD to operate more like an efficient private company. The Defense Business Board is urging a more integrated logistics system, as Wal-Mart and FedEx have. A huge money saver,” one said.
With the prospect of future military operations or security concerns even as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq draw down, 25 percent of Insiders said that the defense budget would probably not be cut further. "Security crises have a way of cropping up to invalidate projections."
Even as the debt-ceiling debate rages in Washington, others acknowledged that cutting defense is still a hot-button issue. “Such cuts would be in the national interest, but the political will is lacking,” one Insider said. “There are too many constituencies supporting the national-security budget for any one president to cut it by this much, particularly while the specter of a future terrorist attack on the U.S. looms over the debate,” said another.
1. Would it be in the U.S. national interest to keep troops in Iraq past the end of the year?
(52 votes)
- Yes 70%
- No 30%
Yes
"Any mission that could not be accomplished in nearly nine years of occupation will never be accomplished."
"In a supporting role to continue training Iraqi security forces."
"Only if there is a renegotiated status-of-forces agreement that clearly lays out the mission, and it should be limited."
"We made every mistake in the book bringing democracy (of sorts) to Iraq, but we managed to do it. We should continue to help after the deadlne with a residual support force."
"The only country that would benefit from a complete departure of U.S. troops is Iran."
No
"Time for the Iraqis to pick up the slack; our presence is only counterproductive."
"Leaving American troops behind would only offer targets for our enemies."
"We are not wanted."
"Any mission that could not be accomplished in nearly nine years of occupation will never be accomplished."
2. Will the Defense Department's budget and other security accounts end up being cut by more than $400 billion in the next 12 years, as President Obama announced in April?
(52 votes)
- Yes 75%
- No 25%
Yes
"While the military-industrial complex has strategically diversified its job-creating operations across the 50 states (like Boeing), the DOD constituency will be unable to stem budget cuts, as there are more vocal and influential interest groups (like AARP) defending entitlement programs."
"DOD ought to upend its military personnel compensation system by offering more upfront income and encourage retention of valuable experience. This way, the military services can be more competitive in attracting personnel even as they reduce personnel costs. None of this is rocket science; it's best commercial practice."
"That is less than a 10 percent cut. There is that much waste in the defense budget."
"Probably somewhere between $400 billion to 800 billion."
"Almost 100 percent certain. And 10 years out, no one will know what the baseline was 10 years earlier, so there will be dozens of arguments about how deep the cuts were."
"But I think it is a dangerous mistake."
No
"There are reset bills that must be paid for the two wars we have fought even though we are bringing these wars to a close."
"The overall DOD reduction will be the result of a deficit/budget deal and the inevitable question of revenue. My guess is, the reduction will less and the difference will come from revenue regardless of what the Republicans say now."
"Security crises have a way of cropping up to invalidate projections."
"There are too many constituencies supporting the national-security budget for any one president to cut it by this much, particularly while the specter of a future terrorist attack on the U.S. looms over the debate."
"Such cuts would be in the national interest, but the political will is lacking."
National Journal’s National Security Insiders Poll is a periodic survey of defense and foreign policy experts. They include:
Gordon Adams, Charles Allen, Thad Allen, James Bamford, David Barno, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, David Berteau, Stephen Biddle, Nancy Birdsall, Milt Bearden, Peter Bergen, Kit Bond, Paula Broadwell, Steven Bucci, Nicholas Burns, Dan Byman, James Jay Carafano, Phillip Carter, Michael Chertoff, Frank Cilluffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clemons, Joseph Collins, William Courtney, Roger Cressey, Gregory Dahlberg, Richard Danzig, Andrew Exum, Eric Farnsworth, Jacques Gansler, Daniel Goure, Mike Green, Mark Gunzinger, Jim Harper, Michael Hayden, Pete Hoekstra, Bruce Hoffman, Paul Hughes, Donald Kerrick, Lawrence Korb, Andrew Krepinevich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, James Lindsay, Trent Lott, Brian McCaffrey, Steven Metz, Franklin Miller, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Kevin Nealer, Paul Pillar, Stephen Rademaker, Marc Raimondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Rotenberg, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Stephen Sestanovich, Sarah Sewall, Jennifer Sims, Constanze Stelzenmüller, Frances Townsend, Mick Trainor, Suzanne Spaulding, Ted Stroup, Dov Zakheim.
Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.
Leave A Comment