Mission accomplished in Kuwait — now let's go

In this column about John McCain and the possibility that U.S. troops may remain in Iraq for 100 years, Charles Krauthammer asks: "The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. I’ve yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait."

Well, if no "serious person" will do that, I will. The United States should not have troops in Kuwait. Here's why:

• Kuwait is not threatened by its neighbors, nor a threat to attack anyone else. The only reason U.S. forces came to be in Kuwait was the first Gulf War. They stayed when it was over because Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait in 1990, stayed in power. Saddam is gone now — in fact, he's dead. The other country that borders Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, is not likely to launch an invasion anytime soon.

• Kuwait has plenty of resources to pay for its own military. It's one of the richest countries in the world thanks to its oil industry. It doesn't need our charity and can pay to protect itself.

• Kuwait is marginal as a democracy. It's better than many of the countries in the region on human rights, but that's not saying much. Women did not get the right to vote until 2005. People are sent to jail for not following a dress code. Kuwait has been cited by the State Department for not doing enough to stop human trafficking.
  

So Kuwait is not threatened or a threat. It can fend for itself. It doesn't share our values. So why do our troops stay there, and for how much longer?

On a related note, some people are finally getting around to determining the financial cost of the Iraq war. At as much as $5,000 per second, it's not cheap.