Uncertainty in Iraq
New Castle News
New Castle, Pa.

Americans don’t hear a great deal about Iraq these days.

That’s because the number of U.S. casualties in that country has dropped significantly in recent years, as much of the anti-American insurgency has been neutralized — either militarily or diplomatically.

During this time, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has declined, as the Obama administration pursues its plans to pull most of the nation’s forces out of that country.

But these steps hardly mean that Iraq has been transformed into a peaceful, democratic paradise. Recently, there was an ugly reminder of the problems that remain, as five U.S. soldiers were killed in a rocket attack.

At first glance, such an attack would appear to be counterproductive for those seeking to end America’s involvement in Iraq. With troops already scheduled to leave, why create a potentially violent backlash by targeting them?

However, reports out of Iraq suggest that attack, along with others, are the work of Shiite extremists. Their apparent goal is to create the story line that U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq because of the attacks being launched against them.

We don’t know how that will wash in Iraq. But one thing is certain: The ongoing violence points to future instability. Despite years of U.S. military and political involvement — along with billions of dollars in aid spent — there are very real concerns that groups angling for control and influence in Iraq are mainly biding their time until America leaves.

… The threat of a civil war in Iraq lingers. And there are suggestions that the Iraqi government may ask the Obama administration to delay the scheduled Dec. 31 final withdrawal of American forces.

There is, however, plenty of precedent for stationing American troops in countries as a means of maintaining stability. For example, long after World War II and the Cold War, there is still a U.S. presence in Germany. …

It’s important to remember that the underlying problem in Iraq is political, not military. It needs to be approached from that perspective.

X x x x

Even a brief default is unwise
The Free Press
Mankato, Minn.

There is a dangerous idea gaining hold in the Republican Party that a brief default on American debt could be acceptable if it forces deeper cuts by the White House.

As the Aug. 2 deadline to increase the nation’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit fast approaches, the idea — once limited to the fringes of the party — is becoming more mainstream.

Establishment Republicans, including former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, are backing a short-term default if it leads to deep, immediate spending cuts.

Jeff Sessions and Paul Ryan, the top Republicans on the Senate and House Budget Committees, have also said failure to raise the debt limit would not trigger immediate catastrophe.

Former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber, a Republican strategist, said the idea that a short-term default would not be a problem “is definitely becoming a mainstream belief.”

The concept of allowing the nation to go into default — even a short-term “technical” one — for the first time in its history is irresponsible.

It’s true that the government could likely shift funding to cover the payment of most or all debts for a short time.

But even if that were to occur, the damage would be severe, long-term and increase government spending.

The United States government has always been the favorite place for investors around the world because it is assumed we would always pay the borrowed money back and never default.

Even the briefest “technical” default would erode the most important card America holds in economic transactions: Trust.

If investors saw that the government was willing to go into default, they would charge higher interest when they bought government securities. Even a one-tenth-percent interest rate increase would cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decade — adding to, not decreasing, the deficit.

And any default would increase interest rates worldwide and cause the dollar to tumble, which could easily tip a fragile economy back into recession.

Republicans and the Obama administration must stop their game of chicken and find compromise that will deeply cut spending, possibly increase tax revenues and, at all costs avoid a default on national financial obligations.