National Security Debate: Costs and Consequences

ILLUSTRATED: In 2008 Democrats need to discuss how much we can afford to sustain Iraq vis-a-vis our resources for the Defense Department.

There have been posts here and here on this blog questioning the options and resources available in Iraq. It is becoming clear what George W. Bush is leaving for his successor: a decision on whether to break the military or let the Persian Gulf Region become a political sinkhole.

Democratic federal candidates need to be candid (if you will) and tell the American people this up front. We need to discuss the scenarios and their costs and consequences. From best to worst:
1) There is an oil deal and a recognized national government and local authorities, 2) The territorial integrity of Iraq is maintained, but more factional warfare, 3) A full bloodbath with outside countries invading.

It is totally naive to suggest that the United States will not have an interest in what happens, and in fact it is possible that the overall cost of staying may be cheaper in the long run (let's say a 10 year frame of reference).

That brings us to the other side of the equation...

The military is hollowing out. We are lowering our standards for recruits, straining the troops and families we have, destroying our equipment, and hurting our diplomatic credibility.
It will cost a lot to replenish this without a draft. There are limitations on future revenues (taxes and Treasury bonds) as well as huge domestic priorities.

There are indeed other threats in the world, so the force needed to defend against those must be modeled and compared against the costs of the Iraq scenarios in a dynamic analysis.

Democrats must communicate this now on the campaign trail since it is clearly the fault of the GOP. Come January, this is our problem.