The issue is not so much having more soldiers in Iraq, but the protection of property rights. Theft (whether by force or threat of force) is a significant obstacle for peaceful trade and economic growth. I still believe that a Government monopoly over security still tends to breed corruption (especially in Iraq), but some steps towards protection of life, liberty and property yield beneficial results anywhere in the world.

My unit’s main goal during our deployment were primarily preventing corruption and theft by placing strict codes of conduct on the Iraqi police and Army (which they weren’t used to) and surgical arrests of insurgents who prevented other Iraqis from living their own lives. The Iraqis pretty much did the rest on their own. While protecting Iraqi citizens and largely leaving them alone to run their own affairs, production and employment rose enormously, locals pointed out insurgents (often beating them up themselves), people started migrating in droves from big cities like Fallujah, Al Ramadi and Baghdad (BAGHDAD, for crying out loud!!!!) to our smaller towns because the standard of living was so much higher.

Some other units main goals were kicking down doors, taking names and arresting large, broad groups of people and sorting the details later. Focusing on all this, with low priority for ensuring an environment for economic sustainability, is a recipe for disaster for both Iraqis and soldiers.

I still don’t agree with our presence in the Middle East or anywhere else ( I’ve read Rothbard, Sutton, John Flynn, F William Engdahl, Chalmers Johnson and others and understand how our foreign policy really works). But success stories in Iraq completely convinced me how essential protection of life and private property are, even before I started reading Austrian Economics.

I really don’t see much of a change if it’s the American government, current Iraqi government, or another Iraqi government deciding what amount of trade they deem free.