EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Headlines or Not, the Iraq War is Not Over
It might seem like cause for celebration after reading the New York Times headline, "Iraq War Marks First Month with No U.S. Military Deaths." But the smaller print on the page reminds us why celebrating is not really in order: "Many Iraqis are killed..." The cost of this war is still way too high — in Iraqi lives and in our money.
With so much attention and so many billions of our tax dollars shifting from Iraq to the devastating and ever more costly war in Afghanistan, it is too easy to forget that there are still almost 50,000 U.S. troops occupying Iraq. We are still paying almost $50 billion just this year for the war in Iraq. And while we don't hear about it very often, many Iraqis are still being killed.
There's an awful lot of discussion underway about the massive cuts in the Pentagon's budget that may be looming as part of the deficit deal. But somehow few are mentioning that those potential cuts from the defense department's main budget don't even touch the actual war funding — this year alone it's $48 billion for Iraq and $122 billion for the war in Afghanistan.
Just imagine what we could do with those funds — we could provide health care for 43 million children for two years, or hire 2.4 million police officers to help keep our communities safe for a year. Or we could create and fund new green middle-class jobs for 3.4 million workers — maybe including those thousands of soldiers we could bring home from those useless wars.
Barack Obama, back when he was a presidential candidate, promised he would end the war in Iraq. In 2002, he called it a "dumb" war. The U.S. role in the war has gotten smaller but it sure isn't over. And it hasn't gotten any smarter. A year ago Obama told us that all combat operations in Iraq were about to end, that "our commitment in Iraq is changing from a military effort" to — what exactly? The 50,000 or so troops still in Iraq are there, we are told, to train Iraqi security forces, provide security for civilians, and, oh yes, to conduct counterterrorism operations. Apparently "counterterrorism operations" don't count as part of a military effort?
Even worse, the Obama administration, following its predecessor's footsteps, is clearly committed to keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 31, 2011 deadline agreed to by the Bush administration and Iraq back in 2008. That agreement was supposed to be absolute — it called for all U.S. troops to be pulled out by the end of this year. (There were loopholes, of course — the agreement said all Pentagon-paid military contractors had to leave too, but didn't mention those paid by the State Department, so guess which agency is taking over the check-writing to pay the thousands of mercenaries preparing to stay in Iraq for the long haul?)
But now the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure on Iraq's weak and corrupt government, pushing Baghdad's U.S.-dependent leadership to "invite" U.S. troops to stay just a little bit longer. Iraq's elected parliament, like the vast majority of the population, wants all the troops out. But democratic accountability to the people doesn't operate any better in Iraq than it does here in the U.S. So the Iraqi cabinet made its own decision, without any messy consultations with their parliament, to "open negotiations" with Washington over how many and how long U.S. troops would continue occupying their country.
Of course it's good news that no U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in August. The bad news is that scores of Iraqi civilians were killed. We don't know exactly how many – the Pentagon says it doesn't do body counts. But we know some of them. According to IraqBodyCount.org, 36 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first five days of the month. Just on one day, August 15, the New York Times reported 89 Iraqis killed, another 315 injured in apparently coordinated attacks. And on the last day of the month, August 31st, at least seven Iraqis were killed, another 25 wounded. And those are just the ones we know about.
The Iraq War isn't over. It still costs too much in the lives of Iraqi civilians and in U.S. taxpayer dollars. We still can't afford dumb wars. We need to bring those 50,000 troops and those fifty billion dollars home. And the way to do that is to follow the money: keep the pressure up on the links between our economic crisis and the costs of these illegal, useless wars. It's really dumb if we don't.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


16 Comments so far
Show AllWe cannot end our wars, our militarism until we first get out from under the boots of the two-party system, parties that in the main are mirror images of each other.
Only fools would have believed the mirage that we would leave Iraq. The whole purpose of the invasion was to reposition our first-line military there, for this "New American Century." WMD's, terrorism, tyranny were all smokescreen lies. How many fools and suckers still cling to these lies in the US?
Thank you for the article, Phyllis. Although the focus of the article is on more recent numbers, one small note: the Lancet studies' estimates of total Iraq war dead are worth quoting, too. They are probably the most accurate (and a little outdated at this point) estimates of the death toll we have and I think they can't be quoted enough, given the fairly consistent underestimates we get from the MSM.
And, one more thing: the fact that the U.S. doesn't want to withdraw was fairly predictable. It was one reason why the invasion should never even have happened - wherever the U.S. goes to war and builds bases or other fortifications, it is a sign that there is no real plan to leave.
Thanks, VP, for telling it like it is, without the sugar coating. There were never any WMDs, not even a little one, as Arundhati Roy might say. It was never a "War" (as in the title of the article) because that would imply bilateral hostilities between sovereign states. It's always been a brutal occupation to control oil and to strategically control the region. Greed is just a characteristic of the empirical machine.
I agree with most of your analysis, V.P. except for the annoying tendency to equate WE with what government elites, operating outside of the law, have endeavored to do, and continue doing.
Why suggest consent, and/or a consensus, where there is none?
It's important to decouple citizens' principled opposition from this false, seeming unanimous cloak of "we."
Totally agree with you, VP. I don't know why so many people, even on the "Left" still beat around the bush. Phyllis Bennis is good, though, in spite of my suggestions for her article. I've read more than a few of her articles on the subject of Iraq. I really wish Voices in the Wilderness was still active, too. They were, by far, the best group with any perspective on Iraq.
It's really comforting to read what you wrote. Having Iraqi heritage, I'm very sensitive to the way that the invasion and occupation have been portrayed by the MSM and people from various sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes I think I'm being too sensitive, but then people like you (and some others here) say the same thing I'm thinking, and I realize that perhaps it isn't just me.
Two things I heard/saw yesterday:
Driving in my car, Rumsfeld a guest on a rightwinger talk radio show chortling over how O the president resembles W the president, and indeed continued and expanded W's policies, vs. what O campaigned for-- proving he "learned on the job" about the TRUE REAL perils of terrorism and the required US response.
Last night, History channel showing a very, very creepy movie narrated by O and crew about the drama of killing OBL. It was a mix of propaganda, had a lot of "facts" that can't be proven to us, and was also a form of brainwashing, for instance showing people how well eavesdropping on cellphones worked, how mighty is the US with it's Seal Team 6.
Great article by Phyllis. Except for the mention of being able to hire 2.4 million police officers with money saved from war. There is no need to have men with arms roaming the streets here. A focus on building healthy communities, full employment will reduce the need on having armed police officers running amok.
lets not forget the huge # of mercenaries.... er, "contractors" in iraq. and the expense. DOD was advertising a position in afghanistan ( non combat) that went for $1500 a day plus room and board, estimating you would actually WORK about 2 hours a day ( you were "on call" 24/7). i know because they sent me the info, hoping i would decide to expose myself to all those toxins and radiation if offerred enough !
thanks raghu,
i just came here to say that. more police equals more harassment of protests, spying on activist groups, profiling and "stop and frisk" campaigns (like we have in nyc), sending folks to jail for minor drug offenses, etc. those who want to make the $ cost of war a priority need to think carefully before advocating an expanded police state as part of their "peace dividend"
Agreed. We do not need to hire more police. I had the same reaction when reading Phyllis Bennis' article.
Hint: Permanent US bases.
Source: Tomdispatch.