A Nickel's Worth of Difference
I’ve had a busy couple of days and haven’t spent enough “rather than working” time. I caught a headline early this morning about last night’s debate of candidates for the Democratic Party nomination about their plans for the Iraq war should they become President.
The big first question in the debate was seven variations of, given that all indications are that Bush is going to leave office with at least 100,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, will you promise to have all of them out of Iraq by the end of your first term in office (January 2013)?
In order of answer:
Clinton: No. It is her goal but she does not know what conditions will be when she
takes office and those that will develop while she is in office. She will
immediately begin to draw troops down, providing for leaving “security”
and counter terrorism forces, whatever those translate to be.
Obama: No. Similar to Clinton, with a “timetable” of 1 to 2 brigades a month.
Edwards: No. 40 to 50 thousand quickly and then quickly removing most, leaving a
brigade for security.
Richardson: No specific answer. He would withdraw all troops within a year; but,
that is tied to solution to Israel/Syria issues.
Dodd: Yes. 1 to 2 brigades a month.
Kucinich: Yes. Within three months.
Gravel: As best as I can tell he didn’t give an answer to the question. He said the
Senate should vote to cut off funding every day until the American people
raised such a holy hell that Bush did something about the reaction.
Stupid, but I kind of like it.
Biden: No specific answer. Tied withdrawal to a political solution of “federalism"
in Iraq, whatever that is, my suspicion is that it is creation of a three
region weak alliance. If that happens he would keep troops to aid it.
If that doesn’t happen, he would bail.
(I apologize for the weird line breaks; but, Word and Google don't like each other. If you want to see how nice it looked in Word, let me know and I'll send you an Email.)
So, if you are a one issue, get out of Iraq now voter, Kucinich and Dodd are your guys. Even given the answers above, the rest left themselves plenty of wiggle room to appeal to non-crazy Republicans in the general election.
So, Kucinich and Dodd don’t have a chance, nor does Gravel. The “mainstream” candidates all say they will take at least a year to get out and more. Read this and then I’ll be back:
Washington Post Article says war cost $280 to $720 million a day
OK, you probably didn’t read the article. The low number is direct on the ground costs. The high number is “macro” costs including things like disabled soldiers, economic repercussions, interest, etc.
Let’s take the low number and assume it’s the high number. Given Bush’s decision to leave the problem to his successor, we are going to spend about 1.0344 trillion dollars starting tomorrow, until he’s out of office, on the war. Then one of the Democrat jokers will become President and wallow around for a while. Taking them at their words, and giving them some slack, let’s say the bulk of the troops are out by Summer ’09. That’s another 500 billion bucks. Say residual costs for a presence there over some period of time are another half trillion. You are at two trillion, starting tomorrow.
Oh yeah dead people. As of Wednesday the Pentagon had announced an even 3800 U.S. military deaths in Iraq (one was pending, whatever that means), about 30 a month. There have been about 28,000 wounded as of August 31, 2007. Iraqi deaths calculated by news reports for September 2006 to September 2007 are about 1500 a month.
So, on Bush’s watch: we should have something less than another 480 killed U.S. military personnel, 9,600 wounded and 24,000 dead Iraqis.
The next president over another six or so months: 180, 4,800 and 12,000. You can probably trend those numbers down given the assumed “redeployments.”
I was going to figure out how much each one of these probable deaths and wounded people are going to cost given the two trillion dollar price tag; but, I’m suddenly tired and depressed.
The title? We’ve spent enough nickels over there. Bush and the Democratic candidates don’t seem to care. If the Dems care, they have no clue how to stop the money and blood hemorrhage.
P.S. If you disagree with me, please tell me so, but don’t attack the quick numbers set out above. Cut all of them by whatever amount you want to and then announce a total. Then tell me the good that will come from the financial and blood toll you propose to pay.
7 comments:
"I was going to figure out how much each one of these probable deaths and wounded people are going to cost given the two trillion dollar price tag; but, I’m suddenly tired and depressed."
Dave - you read my mind. This is exactly where my mind went as I read this.
If I may say so, pretty fucked up.
Yeah Pos, it is, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.
Though having typed that, as you've probably figured out, I'm a Vietnam era guy. I just depressed myself again. I protested then starting in the late Sixties. Worked really well. That boondoggle lasted, assuming a real start in say '64, only about ten years. 2013 as asked in the debate question, seems about right. Maybe it's fitting that Vietnam started with Eisenhower, moved to Kennedy/Johnson and ended with Nixon: GOP, Dem, GOP and this one will go Bush I, Clinton (kinda), Bush II, and a probable Dem to be named later. Not a nickel's worth of difference.
I was against going back into Iraq from the beginning. It has dangerously distracted from our efforts in Afghanistan, and look what a mess we've made. I don't know what we should do about it. Part of me wants us to just get the hell out, and the other part thinks "you broke it, you bought it". I'm not liking the rhetoric I am hearing from both sides. Not very helpful.
One of the biggest problems investors have is that they continue to cover their bet. The question should always be what your expected return is on the next dollar - regardless of what you've already spent. Our first ever MBA president seems to have slept through this lecture.
Haha in the MBA president and what lectures he's slept through! I'm thinking almost all of 'em to be honest. But aside from that, I still don't comprehend the logic behind our going into Iraq in the first place. Well, I do understand what they said was why this was needed but considering that was all a pack of lies just because of oil being the bottom line. Tangled webs we weave, for sure.
Back prior to WW2, when many were in favor of the US being isolationists, if I remember my history correctly, it was later felt that we held the isolationist course a bit too long. In comparison to today -when we seem to have the idea that not only do all other countries envy us so much that we are really obligated by some far-fetched moral standard then to go and invade countries, or at least, insist on providing all kinds of weaponry, guidance, you name it in areas where all too often they really don't want our "assistance" and end up resenting our bossiness in the end then too. Maybe in more aspects than just Iraq, it would be far better if we circled our wagons here and tried to do more at home for people who often are in dire straits just as those in these other countries are.
Bottom line for me is I don't believe any of the candidates can fulfill any of the promises they put forth now with respect to Iraq. I'd prefer to see a complete pull out immediately - if not sooner, were that possible. Sorry for the length -also the rambling too - but that's just one of the things that come through from me when my chains get yanked - and this aspect all pulls heavily on those chains ya know!
If we had no war going on at the moment what would a peace time military cost taxpayers?
Freedom always has a price. Sometimes it is more costly than at other times. Ocassionaly the check that some will write is done in blood. We all cash that check. Money is not the issue it is freedom.
The last two nights I watched a program on PBS called "The War". This program is about WW II and the sacrifices that were made. While the war in Iraq is tragic it is nothing compared to the sacrifices in lives that were made in WW II. The battle of Tarawa for example had 10000 Marines fighting in a 4 day battle with casualties of 33%.
The polticians and many citizens in this country seem to be lacking the resolve and the ability to sacrifice their privileged lives for what is right.
Saying that we broke something so now we need to buy it is typical of this country's crying about the money. Do the right thing and honor this country's all volunteer fighting force, stop whining about the money.
I will leave all of you with this...
Definition of a Veteran:
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
-Author unknown.
I am a veteran. I volunteered to join the USMC. I understand .
Be thankful that people like me continue to protect your freedoms. If you don't like freedom, go somewhere else. I have seen third world countries up close and I am proud that my country takes responsibility. Stop acting so privilaged and worried about the money. No wonder the world hates the USA. The job is not finished.
Dave's brother.
Brother,
In the spirit of debate, an exchange of ideas allowed and encouraged by the Constitution, bought by the freedom, as you say purchased by our military, sometimes in blood, I offer the following:
I'm not saying we don't need a military, nor am I saying there is never a time for us to use the military to protect ourselves. The cost of a peacetime military is far less than we are spending in Iraq in terms of dollars and blood.
I'm also not saying that blood sacrifice is something that should never be paid to protect our freedom.
I do say that I disagree with your view of what is "right." WWII, yes. Korea, probably. Everything after that, for the most part, wasn't necessary to protect our freedom.
Even were I to spot you your point that Iraq is essential to our freedom, we are doing a really rotten job at protecting it by way of our involvement in Iraq. Put differently, I don't think we are getting our money's or our blood's worth.
Contrary to your opinion, I think there are a lot of people in this country that would be more supportive of the what we are doing in Iraq, if they, me, thought there was any chance of a positive result. I don't see it.
As to paying for what we broke, I'd agree with doing that, if the people we are paying had any intention of not pissing it away.
Please keep reading and commenting,
Your brother.
Post a Comment