Thursday, September 27, 2007

Administration requests $189 Billion to fund war in 2008

If approved, this appropriation, the largest yet requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will cause the cost for the Iraq War alone to exceed the cost to America of the Vietnam War from 1964-1973 (adjusted to 2007 Dollars.)

In Vietnam, the military waged a massive war involving years of aerial and naval bombardment, massive Marine and Army ground offensives, counterinsurgencies, chemical warfare (spraying the jungles with "Agent Orange"), psychological operations, sabotage in North Vietnam, aerial bombardments in Cambodia and Laos. How is it possible Iraq could cost so much in terms of "national treasure"?

We are witnessing now the privatization of war. We currently have 190,000 contractors in Iraq. (Granted, some are low-wage laborers.) We have 163,000 troops there. War for profit. War as corporate enterprise. War that has no connection to the defense of the nation in whose name it is waged. Contractors earn over $100 an hour driving trucks. "Blackwater" contract mercenaries reportedly earn between $1,000 and nearly $5,000 an hour for their services protecting high level officials, manning roadblocks and other escort services. Equipment is scrapped rather than repaired. "There's always more where that came from." The stories are countless.

Meanwhile, the Administration asks for an increase of $42 Billion to "protect our troops". (He taunts Congress. You wouldn't deny our troops protection, would you?) When the Administration talks about our forces in Iraq, they only refer to the 163,000 troops, never to the true number of individuals we have involved in the conflict.

In 2002, the Pentagon estimated the war would cost America $50 Billon. This new appropriation would bring the cost of the Iraq War to well over $500 Billion in direct costs alone. (The Congressional Budget Office has stated that overall costs of the Iraq War could amount to $2 Trillion!)

And yet our President has stated "the generals on the ground" must decide how long we stay. Generals whose lives are defined by war and the threat of war. The same generals who likely have more than one offer of a lucrative position upon their retirement, a position with a corporation currently profiting from this endless war

2 comments:

Dicky Neely said...

Yeah ole G.W. is really interested in "protecting" the troops! I think George Armstrong Custer must have wanted to "protect" his troops too!
And G.W. assures us the economy is in good shape all the while the money poured down the drain in this war is not even on the books!
Future disasters loom as a result of the residue of this slimeball administration!

timtraveler said...

Dicky!

How do you REALLY feel???

Tim