Can we PLEASE impeach already?

[Desert Liberal]

This is a paper I wrote last April for a class, but the info is relevant, perhaps now more than ever, what with dumbass pushing more of our troops to their deaths.

Can we PLEASE impeach the Selected Resident of the White House?

What are we waiting for? 60% of Americans are AGAINST this surge bullshit!

Read on, intrepid reader, and decide if we need to send 20,000+ MORE troops to an unwinnable war in Iraq.


The High Cost of War

According to a pamphlet distributed by Peace Network of the Ozarks, the National Intelligence Council states that the war in Iraq has created a "training and recruitment ground" for terrorists, resulting in "an opportunity for terrorists to enhance their technical skills" (1). The International Institute for Strategic Studies states that al Qaeda recruitment is at all-time highs because of the American occupation of Iraq (PNO 1). There are now more than three times the number of insurgents in Iraq as were there in February 2004 (Polman A2). Polman also states that not only have the number of insurgent attacks tripled in the last two years, but there were also more than twice the number of roadside bombs in 2005 than there were in 2004 (A2). This is only one of the numerous costs of this illegal and immoral war.

Robert Reid, writing for Knight Ridder (and reprinted in the Springfield News-Leader), contends that violence in Iraq has exploded as different sects vie for power after Saddam Hussein's rule (A6). The long-suppressed, majority Shiites have clashed time and again with the minority Sunnis who held power so long under Saddam's regime, thus igniting a civil war in that region (Reid A6). As a Peace Network of the Ozarks pamphlet states, at least 33,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, and more than four thousand Iraqi police and military casualties are attributed to the ongoing insurgency and sectarian violence in that nation (1).

Following Saddam's ouster, services in Iraq have plummeted, with clean water and reliable electricity taking the biggest hits (Polman A2). There is also less household fuel available (Polman A2), and many politicians in that area are also relying heavily on armed guards for protection (Frank A12). As Jim Lobe states, as many as 120,000 Iraqi civilians have been wounded during the American occupation ("Iraq War Costs Now Exceed Vietnam's"). Using armed bodyguards seems an educated choice.

As of April 2006, over twenty-three hundred American soldiers have died in combat operations in Iraq (Abdul-Zahra A5). No fewer than 16,500 U.S. soldiers have sustained combat wounds, leaving over four thousand seriously maimed, mainly because of the lack of proper body armor (PNO 1). According to an article published in The Pueblo Chieftain, 35% of returning Iraq war veterans have sought mental health services, and 12% have been found to have mental problems relating to the war (Roper). And we haven't even begun to talk about money yet.

The War Resisters League has published information pointing to the monetary cost of the Iraq War. Although the total price to date on the war in Iraq has not yet been established, best estimates by the League come close to one-quarter of a trillion dollars (1). In September 2002, Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimated that the cost of war would be "very, very high" (WRL 1); and Economics Advisor Lawrence Lindsey estimated the cost could be anywhere from $100-200 billion dollars (Alterman, Green 288). That assessment, while still very low, and by far the most honest of any Bush Administration official, cost Lindsey his job (Alterman, Green 288).

As tabulated by Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, the eventual cost of the Iraq war, if America stays in Iraq until 2015, could top $1.3 trillion dollars (WRL 1). This estimate includes a whopping $386 billion in interest on the national debt, and an astounding $139 billion for increased Department of Defense infrastructure spending, as well as $271 billion allocated for future operations on the ground ("The Economic Costs of the Iraq War").

As of February 2006, "the Bush Administration has requested an additional $72.4 billion in supplemental funding primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" (National Priorities Project 1). $60.8 billion of this amount is to be used solely for the war in Iraq (NPP 1). If Congress approves this supplemental spending, the total cost of the Iraq War to date will be over $315 billion (NPP 1). Spending in Iraq for fiscal year 2006 will amount to more than $100 billion (NPP 1).

To get an idea of the breakdown of costs for individual states, I consulted the National Priorities Project. According to their publication, the cost for Missouri during the fiscal years 2003-2006 is $5.2 billion dollars (1). Missouri has also contributed more than thirty of its citizen's lives, and more than 380 have been wounded (NPP 1). These costs continue to mount every day that the U.S. occupies Iraq. Many states have paid a much higher price. Here in the Heartland, we are relatively fortunate that the burden of war has not weighed more heavily upon us, though I am sure the families who have lost loved ones don't feel very lucky.

As Jeffrey Brainard points out, because of these unrestrained costs, nonmilitary funds for research will be cut in the 2006 fiscal year, for the first time since 1982 (A10). Student aid programs will also face their largest reductions since that time, with only Pell Grants remaining unchanged (Brainard A10). This is not a boon for students, as the maximum level of a Pell Grant will not increase- it has remained flat for four years now, at $4,050- but costs for college surely will. Scientists will find it harder to win federal research funding (Brainard A10); and students will be deeper in debt as they graduate from college than at any time in our nation's history (Brainard A10). Most of these problems can be directly attributed to the costs of the Iraq War and President Bush's overzealous tax cuts during said war.

In terms of lives lost or ruined, and monetary costs accrued, the Iraq war- though touted by the Bush Administration as being easily won and easily fought (Alterman, Green 288-297)- has become the most costly war in our nation's history (Lobe). Not since Vietnam have so many American service people lost their lives on foreign ground. Not since Vietnam has public opinion been so opposed to a military endeavor (Moore). Not since Vietnam have so many died for so little. Though we were sold on this war through a campaign of misdirection, half-truths, and outright lies, the fighting continues unabated.

Alterman and Green published the following, quoting President George W. Bush in September 2002: "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror" (252). The truth of the matter is that Saddam and al Qaeda are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Major General Anthony Zinni (ret.) said the following about the Bush Administration's view of war with Iraq: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another" (Alterman, Green 252). Unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be), the rest of the world agreed with Zinni, rather than with the Bush Administration. After 9/11, the United States had the sympathy and cooperation of every nation in the world (save perhaps, Saudi Arabia); but the Bush Administration squandered any goodwill our nation had accrued when it decided unilaterally to invade Iraq. Alterman and Green point out that we "cannot help but wonder why it was that the Bush Administration felt such urgency…to undertake this costly and dangerous invasion of a nation that…could not credibly be said to threaten our own" (253).

During the run-up to the Iraq war, President Bush and his staff left no doubt in the minds of the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell remarked, "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming" (Alterman, Green 256). Vice President Dick Cheney, while speaking to the VFW National Convention in August 2002, stated, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" (Alterman, Green 256). Even Donald Rumsfeld got into act, asserting that: "We know they have weapons of mass destruction…there isn't any debate about it" (Alterman, Green 256). But as Alterman and Green point out, there was considerable debate.

In a Defense Intelligence Agency report from September 2002, the Agency admitted that there was "no reliable information…on where Iraq has- or will- establish its chemical-warfare-agent-production facilities" (Alterman, Green 259). This report was available to Powell (and, one must assume, other senior Administration officials) for many months prior to the Iraq invasion (Alterman, Green 259). These chemical and biological weapons accounted for a large portion of the weapons of mass destruction claim; but as Alterman and Green point out, none were found before, during, or after the invasion (254-263).

President Bush also claimed that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists…allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints," even though the claim was unsupported, and the CIA contradicted it (Alterman, Green 255). The CIA even rated the possibility of Saddam's initiation of a chemical or biological attack as "low" (Alterman, Green 255).

None of the facts have mattered in this war, and it has turned into a quagmire of epic proportions. Now, the American people are told that we cannot leave Iraq because of sectarian violence and the threat of civil war, thereby ensuring a military occupation and continued costs for the foreseeable future. Our standing in the world has taken a major blow; thousands of lives have been lost or irretrievably damaged; our grandchildren will bear a huge financial burden; and we have accomplished nothing, save destabilizing an already unstable region. Yes, Saddam was a bad dictator, and, quite probably, a wholly evil man; but was deposing him really worth the cost?





Works Cited

Abdul-Zahra, Qassim. "Iraqis Cancel Parliament Session." Springfield News-Leader 17 Apr. 2006: A5.

Alterman, Eric, and Mark Green. The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. New York: Penguin Group, 2004.

Are You Satisfied With Your $225.6 Billion Purchase? Springfield: Peace Network of the Ozarks, 2006.

Bilmes, Linda, and Joseph Stiglitz. The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict. Diss. Columbia University, 2006. Cambridge: NBER, 2006.

Brainard, Jeffrey. "Federal Spending: Academe Faces First Real Cuts in Decades." Chronicle of Higher Education 52.18 (2006): A10.

Cost of War Rises for Missouri. Washington, D.C.: National Priorities Project, 2006.

Frank, Thomas. "Civilians Take Up Arms Amid Iraqi Violence." USA Today 04 Apr. 2006: A12.

Lobe, Jim. "Iraq War Costs Now Exceed Vietnam's." AntiWar.com. 07 Apr. 2006 .

Moore, Michael. MichaelMoore.com. 20 March 2006 .

Paying for War: How Much and for How Long? New York: War Resisters League, 2006.

Polman, Dick. "Media's Portrayal of Iraq is Reality." Springfield News-Leader 10 Apr. 2006: A2.

Reid, Robert H. "Control Over Future of Iraq Driving Violence." Springfield-News-Leader 11 Apr. 2006: A6.

Roper, Peter. "35% of Iraq Vets Have Sought Mental Health Help." The Pueblo Chieftain 02 Mar. 2006.

[cool user name]

1. Kick for impeachment ... n/t

[charlie]

2. No

The wanton wreckage he and his crooked-mouth Svengali have done to the country require leg irons, jump suits, and high-carb, trans-fat institutional diets. Nothing less.