Year in Review - 2002 (Feature) No Exit: Another Act in American Immigration Policy, Post-Sept. 11 (in National News) Upcoming Welfare Cut to Hurt APA Families (in Bay Area News) Ultimate Diversions: 2002 Gamer's Gift Guide (11/29/02) (in Consumer) APA Community Should Tell Shaquille O’Neal to ‘Come down to Chinatown.’ (in Sports) Hot ‘n’ Sour: Primal Scream (in A&E) INS Roundups Put Nation’s Growing Ethnic Media in Bind (in Opinion)

War in Iraq: A State of (Economic) Denial

The friends and family of 22-year-old Steven Checo ended 2002 the way many more families will be ending it in 2003: grieving the loss of a loved one. Sgt. Checo, a U.S. paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, was killed on Dec. 21 during a firefight in eastern Afghanistan. He was the 17th American and 55th non-Afghani soldier killed in hostile action in Afghanistan since the war on terrorism began late last year.

Checo’s death came 14 months into our occupation of Afghanistan, and after the bombing campaign that sent al Qaeda and Taliban guerrillas scurrying over the border into Pakistan. His death highlights the dangers our 10,000 soldiers face as they patrol a country where phase one of the Bush “War on Terror” was a mixed success. Osama bin Laden, former Taliban leader Mohammad Omar and most of their top deputies remain at large, and terrorist attacks attributed to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have taken place recently in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Bush at War, a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post suggests that “the ultimate defeat of the Taliban was due largely to millions of dollars in hundred-dollar bills the CIA handed out to Afghan warlords to win their support.” In total, $70 million was given out by the CIA to build field hospitals and convince Afghani warlords that they should support the United States, not the Taliban.

That $70 million is small change, however, compared to the overall costs of the military campaigns President Bush is preparing for us in 2003. With record deficits facing many states and localities as we begin a new year, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have failed in their responsibility to balance our need for security and military preparedness with our equally important needs for education, social services and health care.

According to the World Policy Institute (www.worldpolicy.org), the Bush administration asked for and received over $150 billion in new military spending during its first 22 months in office, and most of it was given with no questions asked. The scary days after Sept. 11, 2001 may have required fast action and support from the commander in chief, but where has the voice of our elected representatives been since then?

Congress has not gotten around to passing any of the 13 required annual spending measures that should have been passed by Oct. 1, except for those related to the military (and this practice should be outlawed, as it allowed legislators to campaign for re-election in 2002 without giving the voters a chance to oust them if they disagreed with the legislators’ choice between more guns or more butter). Most federal agencies are operating on “continuing resolution” authority, meaning they get to spend approximately what they spent last year. As any manager knows, trying to run enterprise while not being sure of your yearly budget makes personnel, capital expenditure and other major spending decisions very difficult.

Meanwhile, according to published sources, national defense expenditures are up to almost $400 billion for fiscal 2003, and “homeland security” spending has increased dramatically from $19.5 billion in fiscal 2001 to $37.7 billion in fiscal 2003. On top of these figures, $68.9 billion in emergency and supplemental spending has been approved since the Sept. 11 attacks. The Pentagon has taken $30 billion and the rest has gone to federal agencies that will be in the new Department of Homeland Security as well as the State Department, which gives military assistance to other nations supporting the “war on terrorism.”

“Left unchallenged,” says the World Policy Institute, “this expansion of U.S. global military presence and military commitments will generate tens of billions of dollars in additional costs for decades to come.”

What all of this shift of spending to the military means in practical terms is that when our schools, health care programs and social services are cut back drastically in 2003, our tax dollars will have been spent to create an anti-terror police force whose beat is the entire planet. California is looking at a budget shortfall over the next 18 months of $34.8 billion, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that “the budget deficits now looming over state governments will likely reach $60 billion to $85 billion in state fiscal year 2004 and constitute the largest state budget gaps in half a century.”

While our schools will be forced, once again, to hold bake sales to buy books and pencils, large corporate military contractors such as Lockheed Martin will be allowed to prosper. For example, The Washington Post reported on Dec. 27 that Poland had chosen Lockheed Martin F-16 jet fighters so that it could modernize its air force to NATO standards. That $3.5 billion of airplane orders could have been used to help Poland build its own aircraft industry. Or they could have purchased comparable craft for a lesser price from the French or a Swedish-British team. In the end, Congress helped Lockheed Martin by offering a $3.8 billion loan to Poland with repayment terms of up to 15 years. Perhaps they should have saved that $3.8 billion so they can make a comparable loan to California or other states in 2003.

As we turn our attention to Iraq in the new year, former Bush economic policy adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey said that the cost of a war with Iraq could be as high as $100 billion to $200 billion. The White House officially did not go along with that estimate, but the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee said that the $100-200 billion figure was not far off, if the full costs of an invasion of Iraq were taken into account, including personnel, fuel, munitions and the costs of an occupying army. Retired Colonel Scott Feil told Congress in August that the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq could cost up to $16.2 billion a year, and might take up to 10 years.

Given the simple calculations that tell us that President Bush’s planned war on Iraq is not economically sustainable with the sorry state of our domestic economy, why aren’t more of us speaking up to stop this war before it starts? If a war against Iraq proves necessary (and President Bush, according to impartial observers all around the globe, seems intent on rushing to judgement before the U.N.-sanctioned inspections process is completed), other countries will help us to defray the costs of military preparations, occupation and rebuilding.

What you may not see if you only get your news from corporate-controlled television broadcasts newscasts is that our nation’s church leaders are almost uniformly opposed to the war in Iraq on moral grounds. And groups such as Mothers Against War and Black Voices for Peace are objecting to the war through demonstrations and civil disobedience.

Without even reaching the moral or political issues related to this war, however, we as taxpayers and patriots whose goal is a world with peace and justice, not permanent war, should demand that Congress pass the spending bills that are now three months overdue before allocating any more money to the Pentagon. Then, detailed, publicly-televised hearings should be convened to help us balance the gun and butter issues affecting our state and local economies, before President Bush commits us to a costly, unilateral military strike against Iraq.

Reach Phil Tajitsu Nash at pnash@camapaignadvantage.com.