What the Iraq War will come down to

With all the talk about strategy, objectives, "stay the course" vs. "cut and run," one thing has been lost in the entire debate.

I'm not sure how much the media has been reporting this, but the financial costs of the war have been and are absolutely staggering. According to the National Priorities Project Cost of War, the cost of the Iraq War now exceeds $335 billion. By comparison, Congress estimated the total cost of the Persian Gulf War to be $61.1 billion. Rather stunning considering the Gulf War featured far more troops, far more equipment and weaponry, and far more destruction.

To keep a very long and detailed story short, the Iraq War will not come down to a matter of a superior strategy or firepower. It will come down to money. Money, money, and more money. The simple fact is the U.S. cannot afford to keep occupying Iraq the way it is because it will drive our economy and financial power to the ground. Economics and finance are the essence of human civilization and by staying in Iraq, we are ensuring that we will encounter an economic crisis that I don't even want to speculate on. This sounds even more worrisome considering the funk the U.S. economy has been in since the bubble burst in 2001. For those of you Republicans out there who believe voting for the right-wing will bring you tax cuts, you best listen to what James Webb has to say. Should we continue to stay in Iraq, it doesn't matter who gets voted into Congress, taxes will have to go up if we want to continue our occupation of Iraq. Otherwise, where will the money come from?

We are starting to see the effect the Iraq War is having on our military. When General Richard Dannatt stated British forces should not be in Iraq any longer than five years, he was not just referring to the level of peril which has increased since 2001. He was also referring to the fact that the British Army may cease to exist in five years should it not leave Iraq. The costs have been too high to the point they may be unable to maintain such a modern and high-tech military.

Then in our own country, we have Donald Rumsfeld approving the extension of the tours-of-duty of thousands of U.S. troops. Most of you, particularly those who are ignorant of the military, may not care and may even applaud such a course of action. But it cannot be forgotten that a designated, specified term of service is one of the hallmarks of military service. That hallmark is part of the glue that holds the military together instead of turning it into a high-tech mob, like the military of the Russian Federation. It is a social contract. When you start messing with that social contract and begin to violate those designated terms of service, then you are messing with the very fabric that holds the military together. The crisis the United States is facing is not only economic, but it is also social.

Now, the question you "patriots" will ask. Am I advocating a policy of cut-and-run? Well, I'm not really advocating anything. As a human, I have to admit that the events of history have controlled me more than I have controlled them. If what I said above is the truth, then it doesn't matter what policy I advocate. It all ends the same way.

Money talks and it also walks. Its just about the only thing that has been true all throughout history.

Sorry to be so dramatic, but it bothers me that most people are absolutely oblivious to what is sure to be one of the greatest crises of our times.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]

I pretty much agree with you so there isnt much I can add other then this.
The cost of the war in Iraq could be reduced if Hailburton wasnt paid to things that the US military is capable of doing by itself and firms that based outside of the Coalition of the Willing were/are able to bid on reconstruction contracts. I reckon that the supporters of the Iraq war would cry foul if a tax hike was put in place to pay for the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by xpert11
I pretty much agree with you so there isnt much I can add other then this.
The cost of the war in Iraq could be reduced if Hailburton wasnt paid to things that the US military is capable of doing by itself and firms that based outside of the Coalition of the Willing were/are able to bid on reconstruction contracts. I reckon that the supporters of the Iraq war would cry foul if a tax hike was put in place to pay for the war in Iraq.

As much as we despise the corporate involvement in the war, its almost unavoidable because of the poor shape the U.S. military is in. The U.S. military simply can't do a lot of the things that it pays the corporations to do.

The tax hike is probably the central reason we are doomed to failure in Iraq. Not only is the military situation very poor, but we know the GOP would never raise taxes because that would mean political disaster. At the same time, spending more money is the only way the GOP can achieve any level success in the war.

One thing I didn't mention was how the top-level military leadership has been absolutely piss poor. Not since the Vietnam War have we seen such a dead and incompetent military leadership.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
As much as we despise the corporate involvement in the war, its almost unavoidable because of the poor shape the U.S. military is in. The U.S. military simply can't do a lot of the things that it pays the corporations to do.

If that is the case then why not improve the US military ?
I dont have a problem with private firms outsourcing jobs but this is differnt the US military should serve the US government not Hailburton.

The tax hike is probably the central reason we are doomed to failure in Iraq. Not only is the military situation very poor, but we know the GOP would never raise taxes because that would mean political disaster. At the same time, spending more money is the only way the GOP can achieve any level success in the war.

Even if a tax hike was to occur some underlying problems havnt been solved. Tax hikes dont deal with the fact that Iraq only exists on an map and the fact that using military force to prop up governments is a waste of time , money and lives.

One thing I didn't mention was how the top-level military leadership has been absolutely piss poor. Not since the Vietnam War have we seen such a dead and incompetent military leadership.

I have to agree with you although I dont want to pass judgement on US military leadership in Vietnam in this thread. There are to many military leaders who are yes men add the fact that Rumsfeld is running the war and its no wonder the Coalition of the willing is in the mess its in.

IMO yes men are more dangerous then the insurgents in Iraq.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 21-10-2006 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
If that is the case then why not improve the US military ?
I dont have a problem with private firms outsourcing jobs but this is differnt the US military should serve the US government not Hailburton.

Well, that's another side-effect of the Iraq War. The Iraq War has only served to weaken our financial power even more. As you know, developing a military is not cheap, so by both degrading the military as well as systematically crushing the country's economy and finance, you are pretty much dashing any hope of improving the military.

Our programs like Future Force may have to be scrubbed. It has been far too much conjecture than truth and we simply cannot afford it. Donald Rumsfeld must make Transformation a lot less dense. And that starts now.

Even if a tax hike was to occur some underlying problems havnt been solved. Tax hikes dont deal with the fact that Iraq only exists on an map and the fact that using military force to prop up governments is a waste of time , money and lives.

Which is why our objectives in Iraq needs to change to reflect the survival of the United States. Nobody advocates cutting and running, but I also do not advocate staying until the job is done. Its clear there is no job and staying will sink this country faster than nuclear terrorism will.

Related article.

Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a government estimate released Tuesday, leaving far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis.

The report by a federal oversight agency provides the first official estimate that in some cases, more money is being spent on things like housing and feeding employees, completing paperwork and providing security than on actual construction.

link

The article says it all.
The Bush admin seems to put Hailburtons profit margins before the future of Iraq and the USA.

Which is why our objectives in Iraq needs to change to reflect the survival of the United States. Nobody advocates cutting and running, but I also do not advocate staying until the job is done. Its clear there is no job and staying will sink this country faster than nuclear terrorism will.

Well there is a job to do there. The problem is it's a near impossible task. Especially when the generals on the ground request a specific number of troops and get half what they ask for.

I thought this country is autonomous.... isn't that the word they've used in the past during election time? Seems we need their oil afterall to keep our SUVs on the roads. Or do we? Gas prices have mysteriously plummeted conveniently close to election time. This whole thing smells of deception. Why are we in Iraq??? We are not bringing stabilitiy to the region.... we are destabilizing it !