2008 Woodie Awards
Iraq war funding has reached its peak
Robert Berra
Staff Writer
Issue date: 10/8/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
War is expensive. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked Congress on Sept. 26 to approve an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the Bush administration's 2008 war-funding request to nearly $190 billion -- the largest single-year total for any U.S. war so far. Gates said the additional money is needed to pay for the continuation of the president's troop buildup in Iraq and to purchase thousands of new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.
One is reminded of a scene in which Donald Rumsfeld was speaking to U.S. soldiers. When asked why they had no armored vehicles, Rumsfeld replied that "you go to the war with the army you have." Many people gave a valid retort: "You don't start a war unless your army is prepared." When even first-year military science students could come to a consensus that opening hostilities would be swiftly concluded, but the inevitable police action would be a drawn-out affair, it should have been easy for those in charge, the "professionals," to see as well. It is clear that they neglected fairly straightforward preparations in the rush to go to war in Iraq. Now, years later, the Dems have failed at forcing the war's end, perhaps due to the fact that Americans rightly feel a sense of responsibility to the Iraqi people for helping to plunge their country into chaos. We broke it, we are now buying it.
As much as it has become apparent that the campaign in Iraq was mismanaged since the very beginning, to deny funding at this point would have no moral basis. We have a responsibility to do what it takes to keep our soldiers alive. For our part, that means bearing the cost.
And paying we are. Yesterday's request for $42.3 billion came on top of the $141.7 billion requested in February and a request earlier this year for $5.3 billion for MRAP vehicles. Gates said the new request, to be submitted to Congress by Bush, includes $6 billion to support the Army and Marine units in Iraq; $14 billion for force protection, including MRAP vehicles; $9 billion to ensure that critical equipment and technology are available for future missions; and $6 billion for training and equipment to improve the Army's readiness for future deployments. Another $2 billion would be used for U.S. facilities and to train and equip Iraq's security forces.
Now what? Bush will not give in. He will (or already has, depending on how full or empty one sees the glass) ground the military down to nothing and stretch it to the breaking point regardless of whether or not he gets the funding he wants. The funding should then be approved for no other reason than to ensure our troops' survival until a withdrawal order is issued or the country is stabilized through partition. Funding could be interpreted as a distasteful option for no other reason than it would seem to offer an acceptance of the status quo in Iraq. However, if the money saves some of our military personnel from dying in a war that has ultimately become a mistake through its execution, it is money well spent.
One is reminded of a scene in which Donald Rumsfeld was speaking to U.S. soldiers. When asked why they had no armored vehicles, Rumsfeld replied that "you go to the war with the army you have." Many people gave a valid retort: "You don't start a war unless your army is prepared." When even first-year military science students could come to a consensus that opening hostilities would be swiftly concluded, but the inevitable police action would be a drawn-out affair, it should have been easy for those in charge, the "professionals," to see as well. It is clear that they neglected fairly straightforward preparations in the rush to go to war in Iraq. Now, years later, the Dems have failed at forcing the war's end, perhaps due to the fact that Americans rightly feel a sense of responsibility to the Iraqi people for helping to plunge their country into chaos. We broke it, we are now buying it.
As much as it has become apparent that the campaign in Iraq was mismanaged since the very beginning, to deny funding at this point would have no moral basis. We have a responsibility to do what it takes to keep our soldiers alive. For our part, that means bearing the cost.
And paying we are. Yesterday's request for $42.3 billion came on top of the $141.7 billion requested in February and a request earlier this year for $5.3 billion for MRAP vehicles. Gates said the new request, to be submitted to Congress by Bush, includes $6 billion to support the Army and Marine units in Iraq; $14 billion for force protection, including MRAP vehicles; $9 billion to ensure that critical equipment and technology are available for future missions; and $6 billion for training and equipment to improve the Army's readiness for future deployments. Another $2 billion would be used for U.S. facilities and to train and equip Iraq's security forces.
Now what? Bush will not give in. He will (or already has, depending on how full or empty one sees the glass) ground the military down to nothing and stretch it to the breaking point regardless of whether or not he gets the funding he wants. The funding should then be approved for no other reason than to ensure our troops' survival until a withdrawal order is issued or the country is stabilized through partition. Funding could be interpreted as a distasteful option for no other reason than it would seem to offer an acceptance of the status quo in Iraq. However, if the money saves some of our military personnel from dying in a war that has ultimately become a mistake through its execution, it is money well spent.
Be the first to comment on this story