A Conservative Criticism of the War - Question 1

Can we talk straight about the war?

I don’t want to talk about whether it was right or wrong to go to war in Iraq here. I just want to lay out some big questions that I can’t believe that anyone is asking.

Question #1 – Why are we letting politicians pretend that the war if free?

Look, at some point, somebody somewhere has to pay for this war. Every time a “commander in chief” has taken us to war in the past, they have done so solemnly, with caution, and fully aware of the sacrifices that will be necessary. They have had the integrity to inform the American people of these costs of war, and have begun immediately to ask the American people to begin to shoulder the burden of the war that the “commander in chief” believes is necessary. This is called honesty and integrity.

These qualities – honesty and integrity – seem to be woefully absent from this administration. I am not sure why nobody seems to be paying attention, and is not outraged that the costs of this war DO NOT EVEN APPEAR ON THE BUDGET? Really – the politicians just seem to think that if they pretend that the war is free, that nobody will ever have to pay for it. It doesn’t matter whether you supported Bush or not when he took us to war – why are we not demanding that he put the cost of the war in the budget? As a strong conservative, this just floors me – where is the outcry? Let’s pretend that he didn’t lie to get us to Iraq – I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that he did, but I am willing to stick my head in the sand for a minute and pretend that he did not. (Because of course if he did, not only should he be impeached, but I suspect charges of treason might be more appropriate.) But again, for this argument, I will pretend that he has been completely honest in his approach to getting us to Iraq. Now, why does he refuse to acknowledge that the war costs money, and that we must pay for the war? This is dishonesty of the most insidious kind. Members of Congress from both parties have asked the President to put the war in the budget, and he has refused up until now. I understand that the war effort is supposed to be accounted for in the 2008 budget, but this appears to be just another dishonest ruse since we continue to see these off-budget appropriation requests that are “absolutely required” to maintain the war effort. Why aren’t they in the budget then?.

And what is this cost?

• Well, for starters, this may be the most expensive war in our history – adjusted for inflation. Economists can bend numbers to mean whatever they want, and I have read arguments on both sides. The fact is that our budget today is much bigger than in the past, so that comparing costs to total budget will make it appear that this war is less expensive relative to past wars, while comparing the cost to past wars in terms of pure, inflation adjusted dollars will make it appear that this was is more expensive. Regardless of which slant you take, the fact is that this war ranks with or exceeds all of the big conflicts in our history. Of course, I am only talking about the actual war in Iraq here – there are many other costs that ARE already in the budget – things that are related to the “war on terror”, which I have yet to find a good definition for – much like the “war on poverty” in the 60’s. In rough numbers, most would agree that the cost of WW2 to the US – adjusted for inflation – is somewhere around $2 trillion. Keep that number in mind, and remember the enormous sacrifices that Americans were asked to make by their “commander in chief” in order to execute that war, including rationing, tax increases, and a draft to man the war, assuring that every family in America had an investment in the war and in patriotism that went beyond a flag pin on their lapel or a cute ribbon on their SUV.
• For the period 2002 – 2008, the cost of the war will be somewhere between $800 billion, and $1.6 trillion, depending on whether you believe the President (the low number) or the Congressional Join Economic Committee (the higher number). Based on the abysmal record of this administration so far on predicting either cost or success in Iraq, I would certainly lean toward the higher number. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD8ST20L01 In addition, there are many who believe that even this congressional number is low, suggesting a cost that is well over $2 trillion. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm Now, the question is how much will the ongoing cost of the war be? We have thousands of veterans – many more proportionately than in past wars – who will need lifetime care as a result of their injuries in Iraq – how willing will this and future presidents be to fund big VA increases, knowing that in the recent past they were trying to cut these budgets? And what about the cost to Americans in terms of increased energy costs resulting from but the instability that we have created in the region and the weakened dollar as a result of fiscal irresponsibility? More on this in question number 2.
• The 2007 budget for the US was $2.77 trillion, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html), and the 2007 cost of the war was $165.8 billion, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf  So, here we are in the 4^th year of this war, and the President is spending what amounts to 6% of the TOTAL US BUDGET on a war that he is pretending nobody has to pay for. Note that the budget was a disaster, in that the President and Congress did not know how they were going to pay for half a trillion dollars (or almost 20%) of the budget so they just borrow and steal to make up the difference. (The 2007 deficit was $354, and the amount that they took from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to get to even that deplorable deficit was close to $200 billiion. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html) It appears that the actual FY 2007 numbers will come in showing a deficit about 1/3 lower than budget, which we should be happy about. The primary reason for the change appears to be increased receipts as a result of high corporate profits during the year, and of course the federal government continues to be a big beneficiary of the artificially low interest rates that the administration continues to lobby for. Note that servicing the interest on our absurd national debt is the 4^th largest category in the budget. Also note that the 2008 projected deficit balloons again to outlandish rates.
• So, here we have a President and Congress passing budgets where they can only pay for 80% of what they are spending, and then they want to execute a war that adds another 6% to that amount that they are spending that they don’t have, and at the same time these people are cutting their revenue by cutting taxes! (And please, those who still believe in voodoo economics, don’t trot out the tired old saw about how cutting taxes actually raises revenue, using this year as an example. If you are going to make that argument, you MUST tell the whole story – facing the reality that the mess that we are in is a result of the tax cuts in the first place, so to claim victory for the tiniest recovery of the gigantic losses that have accrued so far without recognizing the losses indicates way too much Kool-Aid. You can’t pick and choose the facts – you have to look at the whole truth.
• Of course, the first year of a war will almost always need to be off budget – unless you planned for it well in advance. However, past Presidents have had the honesty to start as soon as it was clear that we were in a war. Truman put the war in the budget in the second year. Johnson put the war in the budget in 1966 – the year after regular troops were first committed.

Hey, maybe we should be in Iraq. Maybe it is worth it. There are certainly many arguments for being there, most of which end up focusing on our need to control the region in order to secure oil supplies over the long-term. Doesn’t anyone else find it interesting that now that we have a President and Vice President whose family fortunes, (vast fortunes I might add), are heavily tied to the petroleum industry, we are spending vast sums defending that industry? This brings us to my next question, and next question…