Palm Beach Post
Editorial
October 13, 2007
Economists estimate that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $610 billion, through May of this year. It's an estimate because not everyone agrees which line items count. Should maintenance done in North Carolina on a truck that's later shipped to Iraq be considered a direct cost of the Iraq War?
The Bush administration's penchant for paying for the Iraq War "off the books" in supplemental requests that receive less oversight adds to the uncertainty. Of course, "paying" for the war isn't what the Bush administration is doing on or off the books. So, two follow-up questions: Who really is going to pay, and how much will it all cost?
|
|
Whoever pays, the leadership in both the Republican and Democratic parties is making sure that it won't be current taxpayers. The only thing worse for politicians than an unpopular war is paying for it.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, this month tried to make Congress face reality. Since President Bush just asked for $190''billion more in "emergency supplemental" Iraq spending, Rep. Obey suggested a temporary tax increase to provide the money, which would bring total spending for the "war on terror" to about $800 billion.
The Republican response was typical. "If the new majority has proven one thing this session," said Rep. Roy Blunt. R-Mo., "it's that no piece of legislation is immune from being converted into a vehicle to raise taxes." But if, as President Bush repeatedly says, the "war on terror" is the struggle of this century, why not pay for it now?
Then, displaying the lack of backbone and have-it-both-ways traits that have plagued Democrats since they took power, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset ... I am opposed to a war surtax." So the answer to who will pay is "someone else, sometime."
The war in Iraq alone is likely to cost $1 trillion. The administration's bogus early estimate was $50 billion. The final cost will depend on how long we stay and at what strength. Even after that war is "over," however "over" is defined, the cost of caring for physically and psychologically damaged veterans will be extraordinarily high.
Those defending the high cost of the war in Iraq try to excuse it by citing the potential cost of dealing with Saddam Hussein, had he acquired weapons of mass destruction. But if the world had been confronted with unquestionable proof of an Iraq so armed, the United States, as it did in 1990, could have built a true coalition that would have shared the costs.
As it is, that $610 billion and counting is on our children's credit cards. And what has the United States gotten for that money? Not enough. Not nearly. Perhaps, as Rep. Pelosi said, Rep. Obey and his allies were trying to make a point, not to get their way. If so, it's a point for which Rep. Pelosi and the White House have no good answer.