NYT editorial, Runaway (Spending) Train: Rummy misunderestimated war cost by $750 billion

[DeepModem Mom]

Runaway (Spending) Train
Published: September 28, 2007

If, as he says, President Bush is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, why on earth does he need vastly more money from Congress to wage war? The staggering, ever escalating numbers tell the real story: As long as it’s up to Mr. Bush, the American presence in Iraq will be endless and ever more costly, diverting resources from other national priorities that are being ignored or shortchanged.

The administration showed its cards on Wednesday when it asked Congress for an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of the original 2008 spending request, which was made before Mr. Bush announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal. It would bring the 2008 war bill to nearly $190 billion, the largest single-year total for the wars and an increase of 15 percent from 2007.

And here are a few more facts to put the voracious war machine in context: By year’s end, the cost for both conflicts since Sept. 11, 2001, is projected to reach more than $800 billion. Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will probably surpass the Vietnam War by the end of next year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

For officials and politicians used to dealing with eye-popping numbers, the additional $42.3 billion may just register as a few more zeros on the bottom line of a staggeringly big bill. But it’s more than enough to cover the five-year $35 billion proposal for children’s health-care coverage that Mr. Bush has threatened to veto.

This for a war that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said would cost under $50 billion while his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, predicted Iraqi oil revenues would largely pay for Iraq’s reconstruction....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/opinion/28fri1.html?hp

[november3rd]

1. Very Subtle

The tidal wave of red ink that has drowned our future generations since BushCo took over is largely due to war, munitions, and private security bills. The creation of the Federal Department of Homeland Security alone cost billions. That was just to set it up, before they even did anything.

The strategy plainly is to drain the economy for imaginary security threats that trump social spending. This will force a cowering population led by privately-financed politicians to abandon social programs for destruction and force programs.

The New York Times does a great job of delicately unmasking this shark lurking beneath our socio-economic surface: the fat violent predator who will gobble up our society in one ferocious fiscal attack.

What the Times doesn't point out, however, is what is inevitably the endgame of this scenario. There isn't a country, an empire, a police state in history that hasn't followed the script of turning its imperial forces against its own population. Military-industrial presidents and congresspersons will ensure that after our population is stripped of effective political power, we will then be stripped of all socially progressive public programs.

The war costs too much, you see, and the people have to pay for it even after they decide it isn't worth the costs. So the unitary executive uses his/her new powers and private armed forces to completely shut down political dissent, opposition, or social advocacy.

It becomes a security issue, and security trumps everything.

If Bob Herbert is able to keep writing editorials long enough to chronicle this American civil destruction, I doubt the "liberal" New York Times will still be able to publish by then anything as critical and suggestive as this editorial.

Behold Burma.