Chicago is filled with debate over new taxes to cover the cost of running a major American city. Washington, D.C. is filled with debate on providing healthcare for children. Few people are asking where a large slice of our public dollars are being spent -- the War in Iraq.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) was quoted in the October 19 edition of the Chicago Tribune: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." The article continues that "The National Republican Congressional Committee called Stark's statement 'an outrageous and delusional tantrum.'"
I would called Stark's comments "righteous outrage" at the delusional policies of the Bush administration. Stark is speaking truth to power in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets confronting the dangerous and corrupt policies of kings. George Bush has fed us at least three delusions: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, military victory is possible, and the highly polarized Iraqi society is capable of democracy -- even a democracy that can be a glorious light to other Islamic nations in the Mid-east.
Speaking of delusions: What were 75% of church-going Christians thinking when they elected George W. Bush to a second term in 2004? The role of ancient Hebrew prophets was not to forecast the future. It was to tell the truth about the present, speak with passion, and get the people's attention. Thank God for the vigorous and courageous voice of Rep. Pete Stark. His voice gives me some hope that there might be reason to be a proud American.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Who is Doing the "Cost/Benefit Analysis?"
Just this week I came across new estimates of the cost of the U.S. war in Iraq -- both human and financial costs. The figures are staggering:
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190907.htm
After this level of expenditure in blood and treasure, what benefits can we expect from this war of choice -- certainly not a war of necessity, by any criteria? James Fearon, professor of political science at Stanford, writes in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs that, "Of the roughly 55 civil wars fought for control of a central government. . . since 1955, fully 75 percent ended with a clear victory for one side. The government ultimately crushed the rebels in at least 40 percent of the 55 cases, whereas the rebels won control of the center in 35 percent." Power sharing agreements brought an end to hostilities in 16 percent of the cases.
What we see in Iraq today is the matching and contradictory assumption by both the Shiite and the Sunni contingents that their own sectarian group will settle this war through "victory" -- the annihilation of their adversaries.
Under these conditions Fearon concludes that: "U.S. miliary intervention in Iraq is thus unlikely to produce a government that can survive by itself whether the troops stay ten more months or ten more years.
Perhaps the best U.S. response at this point is to bring our troups home and pump our billions of dollars through United Nations programs helping refugees resettle into countries that offer some measure of safety, hope, and dignity.
Has anybody checked on the stock prices of U.S. corporations who are selling goods and services to the Pentagon during these last four years of war? Perhaps they are the only "winners" when it comes to "cost/benefit analysis."
- 1,100,000 excess deaths that are related to war and war conditions
- 4,000,000 Iraqi refugees
- 4,086 deaths among U.S. and coalition soldiers
- 28,093 U.S. soldiers wounded
- $2,500,000,000 U.S. expenditures for current and long-term costs of the war ($2.5 trillion)
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190907.htm
After this level of expenditure in blood and treasure, what benefits can we expect from this war of choice -- certainly not a war of necessity, by any criteria? James Fearon, professor of political science at Stanford, writes in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs that, "Of the roughly 55 civil wars fought for control of a central government. . . since 1955, fully 75 percent ended with a clear victory for one side. The government ultimately crushed the rebels in at least 40 percent of the 55 cases, whereas the rebels won control of the center in 35 percent." Power sharing agreements brought an end to hostilities in 16 percent of the cases.
What we see in Iraq today is the matching and contradictory assumption by both the Shiite and the Sunni contingents that their own sectarian group will settle this war through "victory" -- the annihilation of their adversaries.
Under these conditions Fearon concludes that: "U.S. miliary intervention in Iraq is thus unlikely to produce a government that can survive by itself whether the troops stay ten more months or ten more years.
Perhaps the best U.S. response at this point is to bring our troups home and pump our billions of dollars through United Nations programs helping refugees resettle into countries that offer some measure of safety, hope, and dignity.
Has anybody checked on the stock prices of U.S. corporations who are selling goods and services to the Pentagon during these last four years of war? Perhaps they are the only "winners" when it comes to "cost/benefit analysis."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)