Why the Iraq War Still Matters

Saturday, March 1, 2008

(Arlington County Democratic Committee)

Report from the Chairman

Peter Rousselot

The costs of the Iraq war have been driven off the front pages of our newspapers by the deteriorating economic situation in the United States. The Bush Administration has tried mightily to do away with negative media coverage of the Iraq war by claiming that its “surge” policy is “working” because the death rate of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is down. The apparent GOP Presidential nominee—John McCain—talks about a major U.S. commitment to Iraq that might last 100 years.

Democrats should loudly protest every one of these ridiculous arguments. The continuing costs of our involvement in Iraq are breathtaking, and we will not be able to fund the unmet domestic needs of the American people until we extricate ourselves from Bush’s Iraq mess. That’s why Democrats should make Bush’s colossal failure in Iraq a major Presidential campaign issue, and we should tie that issue directly around the neck of John McCain and the Republican Party.

So, what are the costs of the Iraq war? There are always different estimates, but here is a number that should grab your attention: $275 million per day. Or, how about this: in fiscal year 2007, if the United States had not had to incur the costs of the Iraq war, it could have used that money to pay the salaries of an additional 2,342,626 elementary school teachers; or, it could have used that money to provide 39,240,332 people with health care; or [insert some other major unmet domestic need that matters most to you].

The United States does not, cannot, and should not be spending this kind of money in Iraq to “facilitate the conditions for political reconciliation” or to “promote the path to democracy”. Why not? Because there are scores of other countries in the world that are governed by despotic regimes who kill and torture their citizens, and we are not doing and cannot afford to do anything comparable to try to stop these other countries from their despotic activities. (Examples: North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Sudan). Some of these despotic regimes have provided encouragement and support for Al Qaeda militants.

Are we going to intervene militarily with enough American soldiers to “create a secure environment”, or to “promote the path to democracy,” and stay in each of these other countries long enough (like maybe 100 years) to “allow their warring factions to reconcile”? Of course, we are not. We can’t even afford to do this in one country: Iraq. What then is the moral or military justification for staying for 100 years in Iraq, but not in North Korea, or in Myanmar, or in Sudan, or in Zimbabwe? There is none. That’s why we need to get out of Iraq as rapidly as we possibly can.

PETER ROUSSELOT