Cost Of A War With Iraq example essay topic

George W. Bush is asking Congress for $80 billion more for the failed Iraq war. Congress is gearing up to pour more money to 'stay the course' of the past two tragic years. Tell your Member of Congress that not one more dime should go to waging war in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. must end the occupation, bring our troops home, and support Iraqi sovereignty. Many good-intentioned people in the United States say we can't withdraw our troops now and abandon Iraqis to chaos and disorder. Yet the U.S. presence on the streets of Iraq is fueling animosity, motivating the armed resistance, and sealing the fate for failed democracy in Iraq.

Every extra day and dime the U.S. spends on its reckless course in Iraq deepens the suffering in Iraq and at home. The President's fourth 'supplemental's pending request for the Iraq war will add $80 billion to the more than $151 billion already appropriated. It is time for us to demand that the Administration and Congress stop perpetuating the cycle of violence in Iraq, stop sending so many soldiers and civilians to their graves, and stop diverting precious resources that could be used to rebuild Iraq and fund critical domestic needs 110 of these organizations have banded together to form U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW), a national organization committed to ending the war, returning the troops, restoring funding to social programs and government services, and changing the direction of U.S. foreign policy. (A list of USLAW affiliates is posted at the USLAW website at web) Union members and their family members are being killed, wounded, disabled and psychologically traumatized in a war that has already killed almost 1500 U.S. military personnel, wounded more than 10,500 others, a war in which more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died.

This war is siphoning resources from our communities, starving or eliminating essential public services and social programs, eroding our democratic rights, and making our country even less secure. It is time for labor to speak out! At this time of discussion about renewing our labor movement, how can we not discuss the most urgent issue facing American and its working families? We ask you to put the issue of the war on the agenda of the up-coming Executive Council meeting.

And we urge the national leadership of the AFL-CIO to oppose this reckless, illegal and immoral war. More specifically, we ask for action on the following proposals by the Executive Council and the quadrennial convention of the AFL-CIO. o The AFL-CIO should demand an immediate end to the US occupation of Iraq and return of U.S. troops to their homes and families, and the reordering of national priorities toward peace and meeting the human needs of our people; ando Through its community service programs, the AFL-CIO and its state and local affiliates should assist union members and their families who are called upon to serve in the armed forces and returning veterans by identifying and providing information about resources and services available to meet their needs, by advocating for their interests, and by protecting their jobs, seniority and benefits and those of unorganized workers in similar circumstances. Although the exact cost of the Iraq invasion to the American taxpayer is not known, recent figures suggest it is a lot more than has been publicly suggested and will grow considerably higher. Part of the problem in estimating costs is that the war is obviously not over; it just keeps going, and going, and going.

According to a report on the cost of the war in Iraq released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee, the war and ongoing insurgency could cost the United States between US$461 billion and $646 billion by 2015, depending on the scope and duration of operations. The difference between the low and high-end estimates depends on potential costs in 2006 and beyond. The lower figure is based on a US withdrawal of forces within four years, per Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction that all US troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2008. The second estimate reduces US forces to 40,000 by 2010, per a previously released Congressional Budget Office model. The Budget Committee report estimates are higher than previous estimates for several reasons: the war is lasting longer and is more intense, and the cost to keep US troops in the theater of operations is proving to be greater, than anyone anticipated.

Those estimates are also far higher than anyone had predicted earlier, including Lawrence Lindsey, President George W Bush's former chief economic adviser. In 2002 he predicted that the cost of a war with Iraq could range between $100 billion and $200 billion at best. The administration dismissed the figure, and Lindsey was soon fired. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global 'war on terrorism', after the newest supplement is exhausted, could total about $350 billion over the next 10 years (excluding interest payments on the debt), assuming an eventual phase-down of US activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, Congress has appropriated $154 billion for the military operations and reconstruction in Iraq. In the upcoming weeks this total will grow after Congress enacts the president's $81.9 billion emergency supplemental appropriation to fund these operations through the rest of fiscal year 2005.

This latest supplemental includes $64 billion for Iraq and increases the total cost to the US to more than $200 billion through 2005. One obvious question when considering costs is why the government has to ask for supplemental appropriates in the first place. Why can't it be put in the annual budget request? According to Chris Preble, director of foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, 'There is one good argument for not using Iraq costs for not being in the annual military budget. That is the risk you build in tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that are not applied to Iraq, but applied to somewhere else. However, that concern is completely overwhelmed by the fact that funding for war by supplements really seems to be intended to conceal some of the costs, and to present costs to Congress to be a fait accompli.

Congress can't vote against such things without being accused of undermining troops in the field. ' According to Chris Hellman, military-policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC, 'It seems to me you have to ask the fundamental question. I believe if the president went to Congress and said we are going to put it in the top line and we need to fund it, Congress would say.