$80 Billion More For War
By R. David Brown
George W. Bush plans to ask Congress for an additional $80 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amount is in addition to the $25 billion already approved earlier this year, bringing the total "emergency" spending to an incredible $105 billion. Keep in mind, this does not include the Department of Defense 2005 annual budget of over $400 billion.
While this additional amount will surely be approved by Congress, at what point do our elected officials set aside reelection concerns and fears of being branded "un-American" or as not supporting the troops, and begin to turn a critical eye to this massive spending? Total spent on war - after the $80 billion approval- will top $280 billion! If only this administration applied as much zeal toward the more pressing domestic issues facing this country.
For perspective, consider the projected deficit, national debt, trade deficit (with some of our biggest partners), the pitiful state of our healthcare system, underemployment and outsourcing.
George W. Bush plans to ask Congress for an additional $80 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amount is in addition to the $25 billion already approved earlier this year, bringing the total "emergency" spending to an incredible $105 billion. Keep in mind, this does not include the Department of Defense 2005 annual budget of over $400 billion.
While this additional amount will surely be approved by Congress, at what point do our elected officials set aside reelection concerns and fears of being branded "un-American" or as not supporting the troops, and begin to turn a critical eye to this massive spending? Total spent on war - after the $80 billion approval- will top $280 billion! If only this administration applied as much zeal toward the more pressing domestic issues facing this country.
For perspective, consider the projected deficit, national debt, trade deficit (with some of our biggest partners), the pitiful state of our healthcare system, underemployment and outsourcing.
posted by Political Zen at 3:06 PM
4 Comments:
So what's YOUR solution? Not fight? Wait until we are attacked again? Turn tail and run? Hide your head in the sand and hope the terrorists think you're an ostrich? I agree that it is an obscene amount of money, but in terms of the war we are fighting, it's worth every penny to insure that Americans are free and do not have to be killed by terrorists on our own soil. Wars are expensive in terms of blood and treasure.
If your understanding is that the war in Iraq is being waged to make America secure and fight terrorism, then I am sure that no amount of money is too much. I don't feel that much of a case has been made that Iraq or Hussein had any real connection with terrorism, so I am not sure how the war is preventing terrorist from attacking Americans on U.S. soil.
Not feeling that the war was legitimate, either by employing the criteria of Just War or any other measured ethical approach, I am quite bothered by all of the costs - human and monetary alike. Realizing, of course, that the $105 billion in "emergency" funds are not funds that would be applied to any domestic issues (poverty, health, education, etc.) because these programs are funded in the general budget. Most legislators, with a few notable exceptions (Kennedy, et al.), are unwilling to tackle this issue for fear of being branded "un-american". Most of the additional funds are slated for payroll and necessary equipment, so to oppose is viewed as opposing the troops themselves - not a good position if you want to be reelected.
To the central question, what is my solution? I field this question often and it is always puzzling why you ask someone who was against the war to suggest a solution to the intractable mess. If this was posed prior to invading, my answer would be to leave Iraq alone. Remember, they were not threatening the U.S. or it's allies and did not have the capability to do so. After the fact, I would suggest an immediate, phased pullout. Acknowledging the difficulties on the ground right now, I feel our presence is as detrimental as it is beneficial, inciting as much violence as it is preventing. The vote this weekend was a wonderful thing, but we have not been able to fulfill our promise of restoring any of the essential services like electrical, water, oil production, etc. and most objective analysts consider these areas to be well below pre-war levels. We can lend technical support, keep some monitoring force on the ground, and encourage other Arab nations to participate - the "Beast of Baghdad" is in jail and it is now the job of the Iraqi citizens to determine their own path. The latest poll in Iraq indicates that over 80% want the U.S. military to leave. Lets begin to listen to the people we are supposedly trying to help.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A few questions for you...1. How do you justify the unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation?
*Please don't use the tired UN Res 1441 argument, the Bush admin only used that because their case was so incredibly weak and they wanted to cloak their agenda in warm glow of a fictitious, multi-national approach that was ironic considering the contempt that Bush & Co. had/have for the UN.
2. What level of human cost do you consider to be too much? 2000 U.S. troops killed? 5000?
* Don't forget about the 12,000 or so seriously wounded
3. What about Iraqi civilians, 50,000 killed? Maybe 100,000?
* The British medical journal Lancet recently completed an on-the-ground survey that placed the number of civilians deaths at UP TO 100,000.
While I have my doubts as to whether the number is that high, how do you feel about a mere 30,000?
Do the dead feel liberated? Did they ask to pay for this war with their lives?
Were the Iraqis asked how many innocent lives they were willing to sacrifice in the name of freedom?
4. How much should the U.S. spend on this venture?
5. Which of the Bush admin various justifications for the war did you find most compelling?
Post a Comment
<< Home