  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 E.J. Dionne Jr.: Putting Iraq on the Credit CardPosted on Dec 15, 2006By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration’s highest priority. Saving its tax cuts was more important. That was once spoken of as a moral problem. Now, it’s a practical barrier to a successful outcome. Until recently, President Bush’s refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was debated around the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation’s security? On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains. Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration’s failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war—and to pay them—has put it in a corner. The president’s options in Iraq are severely constrained because our military is too small for the foreign policy he is pursuing. Sending more troops to Iraq would place even more excruciating burdens on members of our armed forces and their families. And the brass fears that an extended new commitment could, quite simply, break the Army. Yet instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war. I think it would be a mistake to send more troops to Iraq. But for the sake of argument, let’s take seriously the idea that doing so might help, as Sen. John McCain and other staunch advocates of the war insist. By not matching the military’s size to what we are asking it to do, we have hugely raised the costs, including the human costs, of such a policy. Two advocates of “surging 50,000 more troops” to Iraq, Frederick W. Kagan and William Kristol, acknowledged in The Weekly Standard last month that their proposal “will strain a strained military further.” “But it is also true,” they added, “that we can do it—if we think success in Iraq is a national priority—by extending tours, moving troops from other theaters into Iraq, and calling up expanded numbers from the Guard and Reserves.” How easy it is to talk about extending other people’s tours, calling (or recalling) reservists and National Guard members who have already paid such a high price in this war, and endangering American interests elsewhere in the world in one last effort to make the Iraq gamble work. It’s absurd that the most powerful country in the world finds itself forced to treat its armed forces so shabbily. Kagan and Kristol, at least, have long spoken out in favor of building a bigger Army. But I don’t recall that they or their comrades in this cause proposed any taxes to pay for it. Presumably that would have been too much to ask of the Republican coalition and those who bankroll it. So here we are: Policymakers and politicians will demand more and more from the volunteers of the armed forces but can’t find the gumption to ask shareholders to pay a bit more tax on their dividends or high earners to pay slightly larger levies on their incomes. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, since 2001 we’ve offered $2 in tax cuts for every $1 we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And conservatives wonder why we have deficits? At least the libertarians, who are against both high taxes and an interventionist foreign policy, have their philosophical story (and their numbers) straight.
It has always been true that the administration and its allies couldn’t have it both ways. Their illogic has finally caught up with them. They claimed to be against big government so they could justify big tax cuts. But they were also for a big, interventionist foreign policy, especially after 9/11, which required a big military and—sorry to break it to you, guys—a big military is a big part of big government. They were not willing to pay for a large enough military, and so now we, and especially our armed forces, are paying for their deficit in logic and courage.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Clinton Pick Wins Conservatives’ Approval
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By mite, December 19, 2006 at 5:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
With a deficit in excess of $3.5 Trillion, borrowing more then $2 Billion each and everyday just to pay the interest how are we going to afford to spend more then $1.5 Billion to recruit and train another 10,000 men and women per year? Even with the new draft, i.e. all men and women between 18-42 years of age. Check out the millions of $$ given to the Selective Service in 2005.
This so called war on terror according to the Bush administration will last another few years way past his time~100 yrs. You know taxes are going to have to go up. The Federal Reserve Board Members are not going to allow their investments to hit the bottom and take a few Billion dollars loss.
According to the record the United States filed chapter 11 bankruptcy, and was officially dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat.1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.
`Congressional Record, March 17, 1933 Vol.33, page H-1303’
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. http://iresist.com/cbg/bankruptcy.html
You may ask or maybe not believe how this came about? Well if you go back into history you will find our Congress on December 23, 1913 gave our sovereignty away to a group of foreign and local bankers and created a few months later Feb.1914 the IRS so our labor could pay the interest on our debt. Along with these acts of treason this Congress agreed to sacrifice our military personnel to advance their investments in any nation of the world.
I’ll say to anyone who cares read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and federalist papers. Article I Sec: 8 may be a good start for you.
Now here is the kicker; #1- the 16th Amendment (IRS) was never ratified as per the Constitution by a 3/4 majority by the States as of 1913. kicker #2- it is totally voluntary to pay tax upon your labor.#3 when you sign your 1040 and submit it to the IRS you give up your 5th Amendment Rights. http://www.givemeliberty.org
I know there will be some so called experts who will say I am wrong, well show me the LAW. And I do not want to see any tax codes, Laws only. How come we keep accepting these lies and acts of treason from these traitors. search Google for:
1040 Checkmate!
I’ll address one reason for these LIES, a New World Order that started with the European Union and now we have the `North American Union’ with the start of NAFTA. Now we have a agreement with Mexico, Canada, and Bush for the complete destruction of our borders. http://www.cfr.org http://www.spp.gov http://www.worldnetdaily.com http://www.americanpolicy.org
Report thisBy Paul G., December 18, 2006 at 10:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe we need a new approach. Any time an administration, we can still begin with this one, wants to go to war, the first to serve on the front line of this war must be the sons and daughters of the administration and congress. I would like to see Bush’s daughters do a 1 year tour of duty driving supplies from Kuwait to Bagdad.
Report thisBy Eleanore Kjellberg, December 16, 2006 at 3:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
But it is also true, they added, that we can do itif we think success in Iraq is a national priorityby extending tours, moving troops from other theaters into Iraq, and calling up expanded numbers from the Guard and Reserves.
It should be taken one step furtherall those in favor of staying the course and employing more troops, must also be in favor of reinstating the draft, and be willing to sacrifice their own children-they should be the first to enlist--If You Talk The Talk, You’ve Gotta Walk The Walk.
‘Thus said the Lord, “Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, your firstborn."‘“ (Exodus 4:21-23)
Report thisBy DennisD, December 16, 2006 at 7:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The real cost of anything is never discussed in this country. We continue to subsidize billion dollar corporations that are making record profits everywhere you look. Big oil, tobacco, agra-business - try to find a corporation that isn’t being subsidized on the backs of the American people. Our government balances it’s books the way Enron did without any penalty.
Report thisWhen you can’t even get on the Forbes most wealthiest list without being a billionaire I’d say the rich are rich enough. 999 million just doesn’t cut it anymore. So sad.
Bu$h, Inc.’s war on the middle class and the poor in America has been a resounding success and to the people who have defended and backed this farce of an administration I’d say you’ve got what you paid for with interest.
Run that American Eagle National Debt credit card again Georgie - nobody in Congress is paying attention anyway.
By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, December 16, 2006 at 4:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
After all these years, I’m still mystified about the word “success” as it is used with regard to our “Mission” in Eyerack. I know “Mission” means to send the Eyrackies back to the stone age, which we did with Shock and Awe. Think about that! Shock and Awe. What lame-brained Madison Avenue type came up with that X-Box, Hollywoodesque moniker? As Shock and Awe Georgie Porgie long ago declared, that’s been accomplished. Yet, “success” continues to allude us. What gives? I’d be forever grateful if Tony Smoothie, as W’s venerable Victrola, would define, right here, in simple, straight forward language, Imerrika’s notion of SUCCESS.
Report thisBy Mark Robert Gates, December 15, 2006 at 11:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Once more, its the troops I support, not human sacrifice. I do not want those people dying for me, in that way, as, the only way those deaths could ever have had any worth, is if you people, had actually eaten their flesh, and sucked the fat from between their ribs. It will be better for cannibalism, in those days, when God’s wrath appears.
Copyright 2006, Mark Robert Gates
please my blogs:
http://lokieponaphoenix.blogspot.com/
Report thishttp://wellnessempowered.blogspot.com/
By Al Wright, December 15, 2006 at 11:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Solid report.
The unifying principle of this Bush Administration, and its highest priority is to benefit its most wealthy constituents: gain as much of the world’s wealth as you can get away with, and let the poor folks pay for it.
Everything else is just pretext.
Report thisBy David, December 15, 2006 at 7:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hi,
I can not believe that the government is discussing options for stabilizing Iraq. This is a contradiction by it very terminology. we have no more options left, this war is over and we lost it 2 years ago. No number of troops, especially a foreign army of occupation will be able to stabilize a country without that the tacit approval of that country’s citizens. (America lost that tacit approval awhile ago).
Now our government wants to increase the size of the army and place more money into an already bloated army budget. This will not work and the solutions that the government is peddling is nothing more than about buying time for Bush. He does not want to be the 2nd President in US history to lose a war after Nixon.
I have a solution, its complex and not very simple: it could be implemented today. The solution is in four parts. First get the troops out of Iraq. Second dissolve the current sectrarian government and hand over control to a temporary UN administrator. Third, have a peace conference and negotiate a fair settlement for all of the warring parties. Fourth, hold truly free and open elections after several years of reconstruction and rebuilding of the Middle Class.
This could be done immediately but since its too complex for most Americans and will not fit into a 30 second soundbite we will have to go with the worst of the worst options which is to escalate this war. The idea of this escalation is to improve security but since when was one side of a Hobbesian war of all against all able to maintain and secure peace.
Thanks
Report this