$87 Billion

We support the administration’s request for $87 billion in security and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, the number is eye-popping and no, not every line item makes sense to us or appears economical; although the allocation of 2/3 for military security, and 1/3 for reconstruction and civil security seems about right. Yes, there is room for Congress to clarify, recalculate and shift some priorities within the request, but no, you can’t fight the war and rebuild countries at the same time on the cheap.

We support the administration’s request for $87 billion in security and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, the number is eye-popping and no, not every line item makes sense to us or appears economical; although the allocation of 2/3 for military security, and 1/3 for reconstruction and civil security seems about right. Yes, there is room for Congress to clarify, recalculate and shift some priorities within the request, but no, you can’t fight the war and rebuild countries at the same time on the cheap. The Marshall Plan didn’t spend a nickel until 3 1/2 years AFTER the surrender of Germany.

There are many valid domestic priorities vying for limited American resources, but we cannot be isolationist in our choices; the enemy we face is international and expansionist and has already struck at our homeland. We believe the future of all of our domestic priorities ultimately will be determined by American-led successes or failures in the war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them. If Afghanistan and Iraq are not helped to establish a secure and politically moderate future, the terrorists will have every reason to believe they can persevere.

Terrorists aren’t the only ones hoping the American-led coalition will fail. Some of our erstwhile friends and even some pro-Western (though not pro-American) Iraqi groups are looking for an opportunity to say, “I told you so,” and waiting to move in after we leave and reap for themselves the financial and political benefits of the ouster of Saddam. But if America throws in the towel, if we leave the societies there weak and poor, without laws and institutions that can protect the people from a return to totalitarian government, terrorists supported by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia will be the ones to move in and overtake them. If Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and the Provisional Council in Iraq fail, there won’t be a second pro-Western, democratic chance to get it right.

At that point, we can build all the roads and bridges and schools we want in the United States, but we will be building targets.

We had hoped that nations unwilling to support military operations in Iraq would be more forthcoming with assistance to the Iraqi and Afghan societies, and prepared to help meet the needs of the civilian population and civil society in those places. It is in their humanitarian interest and in their long-term security interest to do so. And we certainly expect the Bush Administration to continue to seek support for reconstruction as well as security assistance to protect and consolidate coalition gains until the Iraqis and Afghans are able to sustain their own security and economic growth. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke of “coalitions” of the willing – we hope there is a coalition for aid and reconstruction that includes police and security assistance.

In the interim, and in the absence of large-scale reconstruction assistance from other countries, we at JINSA will support American efforts and American expenditures.

We don’t think we have a choice.