3-18-08, 9:33 am
By the end of 2009, the US government will have authorized about $750 billion to be spent on the war. Prominent economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz estimate that including appropriations, health and benefits costs for veterans, and debt servicing the war will cost taxpayers and the next generation of taxpayers more than $3 trillion, a conservative estimate.
George W. Bush launched the war based on two lies: that Iraq possessed WMD and that it was tied to Al Qaeda. Both lies have been exposed repeatedly, demolishing US credibility in the eyes of the world.
Almost 4,000 US troops have been killed, 30,000 wounded, and hundreds of thousands touched by the invisible wounds of mental trauma.
Credible estimates put the total number of Iraqi civilians killed at close to or more than 1 million. Upwards of 4 million Iraq have been displaced either inside Iraq itself or living in refugee camps in neighboring countries.
Infectious disease, lack of public services, high unemployment, and other social problems persist.
No political climate has been forged which will resolve sectarian differences and conflict, the sole aim of the 15-month long 'surge.'
And the Bush administration foresees no change in course. Republican nominee John McCain won the backing of his party by promising to offer no change in course.
The National Priorities Project (NPP) estimates the cost of war in treasure has harmed the US in ways that are only now becoming clear.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the people of that state have so far paid close to $20 billion for the war, and can expect to pay tens of billions more before it is over. This bill has come at the expense of health care, education, public safety and other crucial needs.
NPP reports that this same amount of money could have provided close to 5 million people with health care or could have built more than 1,000 elementary schools in that state alone. It could have created more than 3 million slots in Head Start for pre-school age children or hired 315,000 elementary school teachers.
In Indiana, the money the taxpayers of that state have spent on the war could have paid to provide more than 7 million homes with renewable energy resources or provided 3.7 million children with free health care.
North Carolina taxpayers could have hired more than 360,000 public safety officers or more than 200,000 port container inspectors with the money they have contributed to the Bush-McCain war in Iraq.
West Virginians could have funded more than 20,000 affordable housing units for low-income working families or provided 650,000 children with health care if the war had not been launched.
As economic recession deepens, Wall Street financial corporations collapse, and US purchasing power falls through the floor, it is increasingly clear to most people that we cannot both have endless war and bring the US out of recession.
According to pollster Stan Greenberg, of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, voters are tying the war to the economy more than ever. In a recent teleconference with reporters, Greenberg said, 'in the polling, the biggest doubt and anger about the current involvement in Iraq is over the cost and the draining of that money. (People) think that is hurting our economy and our ability to deal with critical needs.'
Greenberg added that his organization's polling data shows that the issue of priorities is the strongest argument for ending the war. 'The never-ending war and those rising costs are central,' he noted. 'That is issue is going to be inescapable in this election.'
Voters appear ready to line up behind the candidate who will treat the economy and the need to end the war both as two sides of the same coin and with the sense of urgency they deserve.
--Reach Joel Wendland at
