IRAQ: How We Won the War, But Lost the Peace

When I think of the situation in Iraq, I am reminded of the scenario that Jesus describes in Matthew 12:43-45:

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Eleven years ago, American and British forces expelled Saddam Hussein from power, liberating the Iraqi people from his dictatorial control.  His sudden departure created a power vacuum, thereby attracting terrorist organizations to this oil-rich country.  Coalition forces spent the next eight years warding off this insurgency.  In 2010, President Obama announced that the United States would pull out of Iraq.  By December 2011, we were gone.

I realize that I have used quite a broad brush to describe Operation Iraqi Freedom.  However, why we went into Iraq and what we did there are no longer important to this discussion.  What matters now is that the United States no longer has a military presence in Iraq, and as such, our enemies have taken advantage of our absence to bring instability to the region.

It’s been said that “when the cat’s away, the mice will play.”  When it comes to foreign policy, this is all-the-more true.  If the United States doesn’t engage the world, our enemies will.  And where the United States is absent, our enemies will thrive.

President Theodore Roosevelt advised that we should “speak softly but carry a big stick.”  A century ago, he took his big stick and put it on a grand world tour.  Calling it the “Great White Fleet,” the Rough Rider sent sixteen battleships around the world.  Today, Navy historians refer to it as “a grand pageant of American sea power.

Even though he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace just the year before, President Roosevelt saw no problem in displaying American military exceptionalism to the rest of the world.  Unlike the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Prize, he didn’t apologize for our strength; he touted it.  President Roosevelt understood that peace is achieved — and then preserved — not only though a show of strength, but also by a show of presence.

Which brings us back to today.  Two-and-a-half years after the United States withdrew its military forces from Iraq, the President now states that he is sending 245 men to protect our embassy.  (He explains that they will not be doing combat operations; they will only be protecting the interests of our people in the Embassy.)

I’ll admit, 245 men doesn’t seem like a lot of military support.  But in fairness, there may be more military forces that he is sending, by way of, perhaps, top-secret presidential findings for which we are not aware.  So, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt.  After all, this is more support than the Benghazi consulate received in 2012 after it fell under attack.  Maybe the President has learned from what happened there.

Still, the fact that the President is reluctant to commit publicly to a significant show of strength is disturbing.  It seems almost as if he is ashamed of having to use military force.  (Perhaps someone should ask him.)

In any event, the problems associated with Iraq have resulted from the lack of an American military presence in or near the area.  Whether this is the fault of the President or the Congress or whoever else is immaterial.  What matters is that Iraq has gotten worse because we cleaned the place up and left it in the hands of people who were ill-equipped to maintain order and security.

Let’s keep something in perspective here.  If the Allies had maintained a military presence in Germany following World War I, there wouldn’t have been a World War II because Hitler wouldn’t have been able to rise to power so quickly.  Conversely, because we kept a presence in Germany following World War II — even to this very day, mind you — peace has been preserved.

We defeated the Japanese in 1945.  Sixty-nine years later, we still have a force of about 50,000 troops in Japan providing defense to the island nation. Likewise, in 1953, North and South Korea stopped fighting (although, technically, a state of war still exists.)  Sixty-one years later, we still have troops stationed near the DMZ.

Had the President followed suit in Iraq, the situation wouldn’t be as bad as it is now.  Yes, we still would have casualties each month.  Yes, there would still be suffering and pain for our brave men and women (as well as their families back home).  But we would still be in the position strategically to put a stop to terror before it could return to our shores. Instead, the strategy of the United States is to trust the security of Iraq with … Iran.

How absurd!  Secretary of State Kerry is asking IRAN — you know, the guys who coined the phrase “death to America,” who held our own embassy personnel captive for 444 days — to keep the peace in Iraq.  (You may also recall that Iran and Iraq had a really nasty conflict from 1980-1988.)

Asking Iran to keep the peace in Iraq is like asking the Boko Haram to #BringBackOurGirls.   That dog just don’t hunt.

It was naive to think that the United States could leave Iraq without maintaining any military presence and still expect that al Queda — or ISIS, or whoever the bad guy de jour is — would avoid the place.  As a result of this naivety, we are now so powerless to protect our interests that we feel compelled to ask Iran for help. That’s just plain embarrassing!

In the final analysis, we have left the barn door open for evil to take a foothold in Iraq.  Now the situation is significantly worse than it was before we invaded. Unless Iraq is stabilized quickly, the Axis of Evil may soon extend to Baghdad, leaving the rest of the world in a most precarious state.

For these reasons, we need to pray for our leaders — especially our President  (something that I readily admit I have failed to do).  Beyond this, we must also pray for the brave men and women who will have to clean up this mess, because they bear the greatest burden of all — the burden of keeping the problems that are over there from coming back over here.


Cochran v. McDaniel — A Final Analysis

In my previous commentaries about the Mississippi Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, I have expressed no preference.  Although I had been leaning toward one of the candidates, I tried to balance the pros and the cons of each man objectively.  I believe I did a pretty fair job of it, especially since an old friend of mine wondered why I was against the guy I actually voted for.

With that said, I have been asked again to offer an opinion.   This time another friend posed a set of questions which seems to cut to the heart of this debate.  This is what he asked:

I was leaning toward McDaniel, but I’m starting to have second thoughts.  Are we cutting our nose off to spite our face?  Cochran is in line to be head of the Appropriations Committee if re-elected.  McDaniel is viewed by many as being the more conservative candidate.  But what has Cochran done to lose my vote?

My anonymous friend gets it.  When it all boils down, this race is about money — specifically government money.

McDaniel says he wants to cut spending, to attack the 16 trillion dollar national debt.  Thus, McDaniel’s schtick is about penny-pinching — to the point where questions have been raised about whether he would be willing to spend money for disaster relief should, let’s say, another Katrina-like storm were to hit the Gulf Coast.  Given that his whole campaign is about cutting spending, he doesn’t seem to be the type who would promise “pork-barrel” projects to special interest groups.

Naturally, this plays into Sen. Cochran’s hands.  Although Sen. Cochran would likely say that he is for restraining government spending, he certainly is not afraid to steer money and projects to Mississippi.  His old friend Trent Lott used to say that “pork” is anything spent north of Memphis.  Given recent mass-emails that I have received from the Cochran campaign, I surmise that Sen. Cochran would tend to agree.  Just take a look at what I received on June 12 from Team Cochran (with emphasis in the original):

First, trial lawyer Chris McDaniel wants to take $800 million from our schools. Now, he wants to take hundreds of millions from our roads. What’s next? Make no mistake: Chris McDaniel is dangerous for Mississippi. And under his dangerous agenda, your taxes will inevitably go up.


Chris McDaniel has come under harsh criticism for suggesting that federal education funding is unconstitutional and should be eliminated. Mississippi receives $1.5 billion a year in federal funding for secondary and higher education with $800 million directed to K-12 programs. This accounts for roughly 25 percent of Mississippi’s K-12 education budget.


Our Senator drew another sharp contrast with his opponent, whose out of-state funders opposed the Highway Bill, jeopardizing roughly half of Mississippi’s billion-dollar highway program that supports and maintains roads and bridges statewide.

Essentially, Sen. Cochran is saying, “If you elect me, Mississippi will get oodles of money… but if you elect McDaniel, the Magnolia State will lose this money.”

Now, whether this is true or false is completely beside the point.  What matters is that undecided voters, such as my aforementioned friend, have adopted this zero-sum premise.  Therefore, to enable undecided voters to make up their minds, I, too, will adopt this premise for the purposes of tonight’s discussion.

However, before we go further into the analysis of the Cochran-McDaniel race, let’s examine one issue in a complete vacuum.  Let’s take a look at the issue of socialism.

If you are a “fiscal conservative,” you probably loathe the concept of socialism.  Taking money from a rich man (by force) and giving it to a poor man (for doing nothing) undermines thrift and hard-work, does it not?   Someone else (I believe Phil Gramm) once noted that it is easier to move a wagon if more people are pushing and if less people are riding.  Using this analogy, socialism does this in reverse: more people are riding and less people are pushing.

I bring the issue of socialism up to address what I believe is the inherent hypocrisy of the establishment Republicans, like Sen. Cochran.  When it comes to redistributing wealth between individuals, it’s socialism and it’s wrong!  But when it comes to redistributing wealth among states, well, that’s different because poor states like Mississippi need a powerful senator to fight for them; otherwise another state will get the cash.

Again, all Republicans would likely agree that redistribution of wealth between individuals is wrong; but what makes redistribution between states any better?

Long before we had an income tax, the federal government divided the tax burden among the states in proportion to their population.  So if a hypothetical state represented 15% of the nation’s population, then that state would pay 15% of the federal government’s tax burden.  (Of course, there was a little bit more to this.  Congress also collected money from duties and sales taxes, but as far as direct taxation was concerned, this was as close as our Founders intended for us to come.)

There’s an elegance to that when one thinks about it.  Presumably a hypothetical state with 15% of the population would enjoy 15% of the benefits of a federal government; therefore, the state should pay 15% of the costs.  A state should pay its own way; it should put in what it gets out.

Along these lines, as a general rule, shouldn’t a state get out of the federal government no more than what it has put in?

Yes, I realize that there will be unforeseen circumstances (like Katrina) or other exceptions to this general rule.  I get that.  We don’t need to be so rigid that we can’t adjust when necessary.  But still, should this state — or any state — take more money from the federal government than it pays in federal taxes?

This is my ultimate problem with the pork-barrel mentality of politicians like Thad Cochran.  Congress has become a place where states compete with each other for pork, instead of working together for the common good.

I submit that if no state could take money from Washington in excess of the taxes that it has paid — except in emergency situations, such as natural disasters — then there would be little need for such competition between the members of Congress for pork-barrel projects.  Such a change in the paradigm of governance would undermine the present incentive for deficit spending, as we would no longer have 100 senators trying to bring more money to their respective states than their respective states have contributed.

Now do I believe that Chris McDaniel will fix this problem?  Nope.  But for obvious reasons, neither will Sen. Cochran.

The fact is that the only people who can fix this problem are “We, the People.”  Our fiscal problems will not change until we, the people, rise up and say, “Thank you, but we really don’t need this much pork from Washington anymore.  We would rather depend on God, ourselves, and on each other.”

I place no trust in Cochran or McDaniel (or even Childers, the Democrat, for that matter).  My vote was not an expression of my admiration, or lack thereof, for either candidate. Instead, my vote was simply an expression of my conscience — a referendum on the state of my own soul and the state of my faith in the people of Mississippi.

And so, in the final analysis, this is the advice I give my friend… and anyone else who is still undecided:

If you believe that Mississippi is addicted to pork like an alcoholic is to booze, but you also think that Mississippi could handle the sudden shock of losing a bunch of money from Washington, then vote for Chris McDaniel (a/k/a “the Teetotaler”).

On the other hand, if you believe that Mississippi would be unable to handle the loss of this money, thereby causing the state to fall into the economic equivalent of delirium tremens, then vote for Thad Cochran (a/k/a “the Budweiser Guy”).