by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 5, 2008
All Rights Reserved.

dding insult to injury, Iraq's new government raked in $32.9 billion in oil revenues for the first six months of 2008, leaving U.S. taxpayers holding the bag. Spending near $1 trillion since 2003, the Iraq War has broken the U.S. economy, according to Columbia University Nobel-laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz. Whatever damage Osama bin Laden heaped on the U.S. economy Sept. 11, the Iraq War inflicts more serious harm. An Aug. 5 General Accountability Office report indicated that Iraq profits mightily from the current cycle of grossly inflated oil prices, predicting as much a $79 billion in petrodollar income this year. None of that profit goes to finance the costliest reconstruction since the Marshall Plan following WWII. Despite promises to pay their own way, the U.S. taxpayers shoulder the astronomical burden of over $12 billion a month.

      President George W. Bush and now GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) give many excuses why the Iraq War should not end. McCain insists that without U.S. forces supplying security al-Qaida will takeover the country and destabilize the region. McCain's assertions aren't supported by U.S. Commander David Petraeus who testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee April 8 that Shiite militias pose the biggest threat to Iraq's stability. Unlike the U.S., the Iraq government could post a $50 billion budget surplus while Uncle Sam runs over $500 billion in the red. “This substantial increase in revenues offers the Iraq government the potential to better finance its own security and finance needs,” read the GAO report. Between 2005-2007, Iraq spent only 1% to assist the U.S. in security and reconstruction. Looking at the facts is a rude wakeup call.

      When Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) promised a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, his 16-month exit strategy met by McCain with scorn. Then Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked the U.S. to get out at the earliest possible time. Most polls inside Iraq overwhelmingly support a timely U.S. withdrawal. Petraeus expressed reservations about a definite exit strategy, fearing a resurgence of violence threatening civil war. While July posted the lowest U.S. casualties since the war began March 20, 2003, Petraeus fears that today's lull is a tactical stragegy to get the U.S. out. Whether that's true or not, the time has long passed for the Iraqis to either defend or topple the current government. No amount of U.S. troops can impose a political solution on Iraq's warring factions. Giving Iraqis 16 months from inauguration day is more than generous.

      Unwilling to pay the freight, the Iraqi government has demonstrated uncanny selfishness, especially considering the U.S. human and economic toll. Over 4,110 young Americans have gone to their graves—30,000 more injured—defending the sovereignty of a country unwilling to foot the bill. “The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects. It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are full capable of funding themselves,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee. With the U.S. in recession and federal budget deficits exceeding $500 billion, the free ride for Iraqis is coming to an end. While McCain talks about staying the course, the U.S. economy can't afford to underwrite the current mission without catastrophic damage.

      Voters in the 2008 campaign seem focused on the sick economy, where high gas prices, growing unemployment and deteriorating real estate markets don't bode well for future growth. Putting two-and-two together, voters are now wising up that spending $12-16 billion a month on Iraq has damaged the U.S. economy. There's no longer the disconnect between spending on the Iraq War and the sick economy. Stiglitz made a persuasive case in April with his book “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.” Put simply, the U.S. treasury can't afford to shell out $12-16 billion a month without sacrificing the economy. When McCain calls a definite withdrawal date “defeat” or “surrender,” he doesn't consider Iraq's human and economic toll. Without a compelling national security purpose, there's no justification for continuing the human and economic sacrifices.

      Rarely have voters been presented with more stark visions of the future in campaign 2008. Vote for Obama to end the Iraq War. Vote for McCain to keep it going. Both candidates can't be right about Iraq's national security significance. Obama believes the war weakens national security by draining U.S. resources and diverting attention away for the real war on terror in Afghanistan or Pakistan. McCain believes Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, despite told by Petraeus that Shiite militias and a failure to achieve a political solution cause the problem. McCain hasn't accepted that the biggest threat to U.S. national security is a sick economy. Before bombing Iran, McCain should look at the big picture of how that action would affect the U.S. and world economies. It's probably too late short of war to stop Tehran from completing the nuclear fuel cycle.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.