Can we afford much more Iraq progress?

[David_Simmons]

This Los Angeles Times story details the 2008 Iraq war budget request and shows the history of Iraq-Afghanistan war funding. Here isand enhanced version of the graph accompanying the article.

It is at least conceivable that such outlays would be justifiable if national security were actually to be improved. However, it seems to me that the action in Iraq is at best a holding action in the terrorism program. All we are doing is preventing Al Qaeda in Iraq from operating in Iraq and that only with the cooperation of the Iraqis in Al Anbar who are not exactly our bosom buddies. I don’t believe that has anything to do with defending the US against Al Qaeda and other organizations planning and carrying out operations in and against the US.

This president will retire to Crawford and leave this mess to his successors. I say successors because I really don’t see how the blunders made and the damage done can be corrected in just two presidential terms.

At least it will give those successors and the congress something to do.

[Johnny_L.A]

I was listening to NPR the other day and the person they were interviewing said that the percentage of the GDP that Bush’s War is costing is much less than Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. His conclusion was that the U.S. is quite capable of absorbing the cost of the war.

Christ in crotchless panties! ‘It’s not that bad! It’s only costing us 2%!’ But think about all of the better uses that 2% can be put to, nevermind the immorality of causing the mess in the first place.

@David Simmons

This president will retire to Crawford and leave this mess to his successors.

Seems to be a pattern with him.

[David_Simmons]

@Johnny L.A.

I was listening to NPR the other day and the person they were interviewing said that the percentage of the GDP that Bush’s War is costing is much less than Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. His conclusion was that the U.S. is quite capable of absorbing the cost of the war.

Well, the cost is growing faster than the GNP. Of course if the next president has any smarts that growth will cease.

If the war were actually accomplishing anything toward security from terrorist attacks the added federal budget deficit might be justifiable.

I don’t think it is.

[Johnny_L.A]

@David Simmons

I don’t think it is.

I agree.

[marshmallow]

First off, as I’ve had calmly explained to me on this board before and as several prominent Republican politicians have detailed, the entire debt thing is a cipher, a phantasm. It doesn’t matter how much money we “waste” because there are no negative consequences. At all. And if there are some minor problems in the short term that’s OK, we can just have Congress lift the debt ceiling, as we’ll have to do very soon.

So, don’t worry that the Iraq war will end up costing a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars is just silly. It’s like, you may as well say it’ll cost a brazillion dollars. It’s totally meaningless. And there are no opportunity costs, either. You couldn’t find any examples of stuff we could do if it weren’t for the occupation. You know why? Because you could just use the credit card to pay for any of that stuff, you know? Ask the Chinese nicely and they’ll gladly loan us something. Just make the U.S. debt eleventy quatrillion dollars, whatever. It’s like when kids try to think of the largest number, it’s just a game.

As for other areas, are you kidding? We can’t afford to not stay in Iraq! Have you been keeping track of those stocks? Those quarterly profits? If you’re Ratheon, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, KBR, et al, why would you want to get off the gravy train?

What are other reasons I’ve heard? Well, the army is supposedly being stretched to the limit and will end up broken. Well, I have my doubts. We’ve been hearing about this for years and years. It’s like man, either do something or get off the pot, you know? And what if they do break? That’s no big deal. That’s what the private sector is for. Asking the government that gave us FEMA to run the military is pretty crazy if you ask me.

@David Simmons

If the war were actually accomplishing anything toward security from terrorist attacks the added federal budget deficit might be justifiable.

Ah, well that’s where you’re obviously wrong! Since September of 2001, there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States, all thanks to the visionary leadership of George W. Bush. I know, the usual suspects will point out bombings in Spain, the U.K., Russia, Oceania, Iran, India, or the fact that the Middle East is currently on fire. What part of “we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” don’t they understand? If we weren’t in Iraq, it’s obvious that shop keepers and doctors and teachers and disgruntled Iraqi military men would have come over here to battle us in our very streets!

[Spezza]

@David Simmons

However, it seems to me that the action in Iraq is at best a holding action in the terrorism program.

The action in Iraq is an exportation of terrorism, nothing more. The United States is not any safer today than on 10 Sept 01. In fact it is a lot less safe, free, and powerful than it was on 10 Sept 01.

As for whether the United States can afford the war, the answer is no. While it can obviously afford the cost of occupying another country it has drained the coffers of the country to do so. Millions of actual citizens suffer without insurance, decent educational standards, health care, etc, while billions are funneled into a military occupation which has no strategic objective other than “we cannot fail.”

So yes, the United States can afford the occupation. However, in a few years, if not less, the real cost of what occupying Iraq has afforded American will be a mission accomplished.

[John_Mace]

@David Simmons

This president will retire to Crawford and leave this mess to his successors. I say successors because I really don’t see how the blunders made and the damage done can be corrected in just two presidential terms.

At least it will give those successors and the congress something to do.

Yes. The sad, sad fact is that we will still probably be having the debate about bringing all the troops home 10 years from now. There is no plan on the table right now with enough support to really bring all the troops home. The plans the major players are talking about all contain provisions to leave some unspecified number of troops there indefinitely for training, fighting al Qaeda (such as it is), and protecting US intstallations (like that enormous embassy).

I am not a military expert, but it’s hard to image you could do that with some small contingent of troops-- there would have to be a big enough force so as not to be vulnerable to attack. 20K? 50k? 70k? I really don’t know, and I haven’t seen any politician, either Republican or Democrat, get to the specifics of what that number will likely be.

[David_Simmons]

@John Mace

I am not a military expert, but it’s hard to image you could do that with some small contingent of troops-- there would have to be a big enough force so as not to be vulnerable to attack. 20K? 50k? 70k? I really don’t know, and I haven’t seen any politician, either Republican or Democrat, get to the specifics of what that number will likely be.

Nor am I such an expert but if we have 20000 actual troops doing effective policing, training, etc. there will need to be something like 100000 contractors to provide logistical support.

[casdave]

The idea that this is denying an operationg zone to Al qaeda is laughable.

It much more an operating zone for them now than before Saddam Hussain was removed.

…and whose main responsibility is it ? The voters of course.

[David_Simmons]

@marshmallow

So, don’t worry that the Iraq war will end up costing a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars is just silly. It’s like, you may as well say it’ll cost a brazillion dollars. It’s totally meaningless.

You must have been studying Robert Benchley’s How To Understand International Finance.

This is the principle of finance. So long as you can pronounce any number above a thousand, you have got that much money. You can’t work this scheme with the shoe store man or the restaurant owner, but it goes big on Wall St. or in international financial circles.

This much understood, we see that when the Allies demand 132,000,000,000 gold marks from Germany They know very well that nobody in Germany has ever seen 132,000,000,000 gold marks and never will. A more surprised and disappointed lot of boys you couldn’t ask see than the Supreme Financial Council would be if Germany were actually to send them a money order for the full amount demanded.

What they mean is that, taken all in all, Germany owes the world 132,000,000,000 gold marks plus carfare. That includes everything, breakage, meals sent to room, good will, everything. Now, it is understood that if they real meant this, Germany couldn’t even draw cards …

I guess as long as we keep buying things from China, they will have money to lend us.

Of course, if the dollar keeps going down our bonds will be worth less and new bonds to pay the old debt and interest will carry a higher and higher interest rate.

But that’s OK, I guess, as long as the Iraq program is making such progress.

[marshmallow]

@casdave

…and whose main responsibility is it ? The voters of course.

Let me run some quotes by you.

[on when to use military force] Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory – our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances – our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

Let me tell you what else I’m worried about: I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

They said we could, even though we’re the strongest military, that if we don’t do something quickly, we don’t have a clearer vision of the military, if we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that. I’m going to rebuild our military power. It’s one of the major priorities of my administration.

That was Bush in 2000. If you’ll recall, he ran against the concept of nation building, deriding the many foreign entanglements of the Clinton presidency, for being the world’s policemen, etc. Those type of lines got a lot of applause. It’s not the voter’s fault he was lying through his teeth.

[David_Simmons]

@marshmallow

Those type of lines got a lot of applause. It’s not the voter’s fault he was lying through his teeth.

Not the first time and he lost that popular vote. However, how about the second time and he actually won that popular vote? The voters don’t exactly shine in that one.

[casdave]

It’s not the voter’s fault he was lying through his teeth

Its the voters fault for believing him, or any politician, but lets face it, we all knew he was an even worse liar and very much an oilman.

Voters were so tied up with a story about speedboats they forgot to think, its that simple and now you have the leader you deserve.

[BrainGlutton]

@casdave

Its the voters fault for believing him, or any politician, but lets face it, we all knew he was an even worse liar and very much an oilman.

Voters were so tied up with a story about speedboats they forgot to think, its that simple and now you have the leader you deserve.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world also has to deal with the American leader the American people deserve.

[Zoe]

casdave: Voters were so tied up with a story about speedboats they forgot to think, its that simple and now you have the leader you deserve.

Listen to the lad from Yorkshire. Shame on him! He voted for Bush just as many times as I did! But did he ever vote for Gore or Kerry? Not once! And I voted for both of them!

And he wants to blame moi? The nerve…

[casdave]

Collective responsibility and all that stuff.

I have my own burdens, I voted for Blair, it wasn’t big and it wasn’t clever.

[marshmallow]

Yes, I would definitely agree that the 2004 election was pretty spectacular. At least go for the lesser evil. Still, when the duopoly gives us a “choice” between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, or Gore and Bush, or Clinton and Dole…you must despair. We were sold down the river long ago.