I read an article over the weekend that is still making me feel ill. It is about Iraq and the cost of the war. I can’t get it out of my mind.
I was in the White House on the day the president landed on the aircraft carrier and spoke with the “Mission Accomplished” sign behind him. I remember coming home and talking to Kim and feeling giddy about all that had been done – we had liberated Iraq. It was all so easy. The UN was wrong. The weapons inspectors had been wrong. The Democrats had been wrong. Everyone had been wrong except my president and his White House – the White House where I worked.
Now the horrifying realization that perhaps everyone but our White House had been…right. That a discussion for another day.
For this day, an article about the financial costs of the war that puts the trillion dollars spent into perspective and compares to other ways the money could have been used. It could prove to be one of the more important commentaries on the war ever written:
There are many comparisons that might be made, and devising new governmental monetary units is one way to make them. Consider, for example, that the value of one EPA, the annual budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, is about $7.5 billion. The cost of the Iraq War is thus more than a century’s worth of EPA spending (in today’s dollars), almost 130 EPAs, only a small handful of which would probably have been sufficient to clean up Superfund sites around the country.
Or note that the annual budget for the Department of Education is about $55 billion, which puts the price tag for Iraq at about 18 EDs. Just a few of these EDs would certainly have put muscle into the slogan “No child left behind.”
And since the annual budgets of the National Science Foundation and the National Cancer Institute are $6 billion and $5 billion, respectively, the $1 trillion war cost is equivalent to 170 NSFs and 200 NCIs. No doubt a couple of those NSFs could have been used to develop cheap hybrid cars and alternative fuels. Scientific progress is by its nature unpredictable, but some extra NCIs might also have lead to breakthroughs in cancer treatment.
The cost of the war can also be expressed as approximately 28 HS’s, where HS, the annual budget for the Department of Homeland Security, is about $35 billion. Really securing the ports and chemical plants would have only eaten up a few of these HS’s. A few more could have been usefully spent in Afghanistan.
…Another way to get at the $1 trillion cost of the Iraq War is to note that the Treasury could have used the money to mail a check for more than $3,000 to every man, woman and child in the United States. The latter alternative would have an added benefit: Uniformly distributed and spent in this country, the money would have provided an economic stimulus that the war expenditures have not.
Alternatively, if the money was spent in an even more ecumenical way and a global mailing list was available, the Treasury could have sent a check for more than $150 to every human being on earth. The lives of millions of children, who die from nothing more serious than measles, tetanus, respiratory infections and diarrhea, could be saved, since these illnesses can be prevented by $2 vaccines, $1 worth of antibiotics, or a 10-cent dose of oral rehydration salts as well as the main but still very far from prohibitive cost of people to administer the programs.
I can’t get those numbers out of my head – 200 times the amount spent battling cancer… $150 for every human being on earth…. all that money gone. It is unfathomable and now? I don’t have any answers just a sick feeling and a deep, lingering sadness over a great mistake that has cost so much possibility. And that doesn’t even cover the scores of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, the scores of thousands of wounded Americans, the thousands of dead Americans.
There is some peace in realizing the money never would have gone for those things in the first place. Neither this administration or any other would have expended those kinds of resources – and Congress never would have authorized them to do it. Then again, maybe that is some of my sadness – that we find it easy to write checks for wars and find it so hard to write checks for compassion.
posted February 6, 2007 at 1:04 pm
The Mission WAS accomplished. Then Islam and muslims took control of Iraq AFTER the mission was complete. Get real David. The only people wrong on the Iraq “war” are people that will not admit who and what we are NOW fighting! Islam and Muslims (terrorists and Jihadists). And those in the Democrat party helping them. Reality David
posted February 6, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda……..solutions? If we are not part of a solution, we may be part of problem.
posted February 6, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“Then again, maybe that is some of my sadness – that we find it easy to write checks for wars and find it so hard to write checks for compassion.”I think it is sad we are willing to do this for war but not to feed the hungry, or help those in Darfur or rebuild leevees that really need to be rebuilt. Being the evil Democrat that I am I do think compassion, dialogue and the best use of democracy would have won over many more people then what we have now done. Sorry Donny but to continue to point the finger at democrats just weakens your argument. We are not to blame for all the evils in the world just as we have to take responsibility to agreeing to be in this war. I personally have not found a good reason for it. And have not been convinced otherwise. We have taken a bad path and I feel David’s sadness and dissappointment they we have become a less noble nation because. The muslims have not done, nor just the democrats. We have to take a stand and again become a beacon of liberty and freedon not hatred and warmongering.
posted February 6, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Carol,Donnie has no point. No sense even reading what he writes.
posted February 6, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I should have read my comments more clearly- not well written- the pitfalls of trying to post while at work. Shame on me. Yes I know about other comments but sometimes I can’t help but respond. Shame on me again?
posted February 6, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Just trying to save you from the frustration
posted February 7, 2007 at 1:32 am
David, I deeply share your disappointment as I have written to you in the past. It is a misplacement of priorities. Even more sadly, these misplaced priorities were made by a “Christian” president. I think of the parable in which a rich man leaves different sums of money to his three servants. The first two multiplied their investments. The latter buried for fear of losing the money. So we are called by God to use our talents, opportunities, and gifts. I am afraid that this administration has not only squandered much, but also has misused what was entrusted to it. President Bush often invokes Christian phrases in his speeches and during interviews. I cannot assess his faith in God, but I can see the fruit of his actions, which sadly display arrogance, destruction and deception. Even the recent outing of Valerie Plame bothers me as the President promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Unless he has been so out of touch with what is going on in his own vice president’s office, he, at the very least, must have made decisions not to fire those who leaked information (as he promised)and destroyed the career of a dedicated civil servant who dared to disagree with his policy to invade Iraq. Likewise, I am appalled by the human rights abuses and kidnappings perpetrated by our government, all in the name of “freedom” and “security.” Jesus has said that where your treasure is, so is your heart. He also said to love your neighbor as yourself. Despite their frequent use of religious buzzwords and publicized piety, I have not seen these simple elements of faith exercised by those leading this administration.
posted February 7, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The only “Christians” GOING to the poor are what the Left referews to as Right Wing Fundamentalists. The “Left Wing” religiosity-ranters, are marching in Washington DC getting autographs from movie stars, that in turn, go back home to the comfy mansions in Bel Air, Beverly Hills and Malibu, or their great ranch spreads far from the evils of this world. How many starving people could be spared that fate if the Hollywood elite sold their multi-million dollar homes and TOOK the proceeds from their endeavors TO the poor and needy. The only people I see DOING anything, is the kind of folks that watch the 700 Club and attend Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg Virgina. Church home of Jerry Falwell ministries. Right, can also mean correct.
posted February 8, 2007 at 5:51 am
Donny, Maybe you need to switch news channels if you aren’t aware of all the celebrities who are helping the poor, ie: Oprah’s recent $40M school, Bono, Angelina Jolie and BF Brad, Steve Baldwin, and lots of others who get much less publicity. Meanwhile $bazillions of charitable contributions by wealthy Righties do not go to the poor, but to the playgrounds of the rich, ie: the opera, museums,the theater, etc.
posted February 8, 2007 at 1:49 pm
c kitty, Actually your characterization of where the charitable funds go is false, but on the issue of aid in general you should have a look at: The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid Isn’t Working by Robert Calderisi and The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good by William Easterlycheers, Paul
posted February 8, 2007 at 2:55 pm
FYI, a very interesting perspecitve on Iraq. http://newsbusters.org/node/10626 cheers, Paul
posted February 8, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Today, we are collecting money for the Red Cross to benefit the refugees of Darfur. One of my students works in a bakery near my house after school. I know she helps pay her own tuition and that there is not an extra penny anywhere. She handed me a fifty dollar bill at lunch. I know it was every cent she made this week. Today, she’s my “Mike” and her name is Katie. She’s 15.
posted February 9, 2007 at 3:47 am
Paul Are you trying to say that the rich republicans don’t support the arts? Or are you just trying to find reasons not to help those in need? The argument that we shouldn’t give to those in need because it doesn’t always work to our satisfaction is just an excuse to hang on to your money. Of couse, nothing ever works all the time. Failure should be motivation to do better, rather than do nothing. I do believe that God is more interested in our efforts than our successes.
posted February 9, 2007 at 6:00 am
c Kitty, No, that is not the arguement. The issues are not as simplistic as you present. The information is there if you are really interested in finding real ways of helping the poor rather than indulging in self serving (guilt asuaging) activities which perpetuate the illusion of helping, but in fact making matters much worse. cheers, Paul
posted February 10, 2007 at 4:42 am
Paul, The statement I was responding to was to the effect that the only people helping the poor in this world are those who attend Falwell’s church and watch the 700 Club, in other words, right wing fundamentalists and that the liberal Hollywoood types offer nothing to the poor. I was trying to point out that some of the richest righties contribute more to the arts than to the poor and that liberal celebrities do contribute both time and money to help the poor. The degree of success of such efforts was not an issue. If you feel the need to characterize people’s genuine efforts as self-serving and more harmful than helpful, that is your choice.If you have the answer to curing poverty, by all means let the rest of us in on it.Otherwise, we will just have to keep stupidly stumbling along self-servingly giving of our time and money in hopeless selfishness. Maybe we will end up just giving up and doing nothing rather than having to live with the guilt of doing so much harm.
posted February 10, 2007 at 6:14 am
c kitty, I never said anything about fallwell et al. Check out the references I cited, if you are really interested in the issues. cheers, Paul
posted February 11, 2007 at 3:56 am
I was not initially responding to your post if you care to check.