MILITARY CONFLICTS AND U.S. SECURITY

• As of October 24 the Iraq war has cost $456 billion. On October 22 the administration requested an additional $45.9 billion in war-related spending for fiscal 2008. This request is in addition to the $147 billion already requested for the Department of Defense and the $3.6 billion for other agencies. The vast majority of this appropriation, if approved, would go toward the Iraq war. If approved, these appropriations would raise total spending on the war to approximately $611 billion. (National Priorities Project. “Local Cost of the Iraq War, Through FY 2007” October 24, 2007.)
• The outgoing military chief, General Peter Pace, warned Congress earlier this year that America's ability to deal with another crisis in the world was being eroded. In a classified report, he said there was a “significant” risk that America would not be ready to respond properly to a series of possible military conflicts—from Korea to Taiwan, Cuba or Iran. (The Hobbled Hegemon, The Economist, June 28, 2007
• Much of the equipment used in Iraq needs either repair or to be replaced further stressing the financial resources of the military. The army entered the war on terror with $56 billion worth of equipment shortages and these shortages have increased because equipment is being worn out or destroyed much faster than expected. (The Hobbled Hegemon, The Economist, June 28, 2007)
• Washington announced that in July of this year it had plans to funnel more than $43 billion worth of military aid to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states over the next 10 years to help protect them against Iran and fears of a spillover from the military chaos in Iraq. (U.S. boosting military aid in terrorism fight: study, Reuters, September 6, 2007)
• Meanwhile, on September 29, 2007, the Iraqi government’s announcement that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq - the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation - will be the last and an anticipated announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of Iraq's oil revenues. The second announcement could negate the oil legislation that the US is trying to push through the Iraqi parliament—which awards foreign oil companies (mostly American) coveted, long-term, 20-35 year contracts which all of the other oil producing countries have rejected in the past. Furthermore this legislation places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include the representatives of international oil companies as full voting members. The bottom line: the US is forced to leave Iraq and, if the war was about oil, it leaves with nothing gained and much lost. (Endgame for Iraqi Oil? TomDispatch.com, October 24, 2007)
• President Bush has asked for $46 billion more this year for the wars in Iraq And Afghanistan bringing the 2008 price tag to $196.4 billion. Starting at September 11, 2001, war-fighting expenses total $800 billion. (New York Times Editorial, “Another $200 Billion”, October 25, 2007)
• The Bush administration has doubled the amount of government money going to all types of private contractors to $400 billion, creating a new and thriving class of post-9/11 corporations carrying out delicate work for the government. But the number of government employees issuing, managing and auditing contracts has barely grown, creating a situation of massive abuse, mismanagement and waste. Of even greater concern, the State Department has said it will continue to rely on contractors because, for now, it has no choice. It cannot quickly hire the bodyguards and trainers it would need to replace the contractors and the military does not have the trained personnel to take over the job. (New York Times Editorial, “Another $200 Billion”, October 25, 2007)
• On Tuesday, November 6, 2007, a Congressional appropriations conference committee approved $471 billion in defense spending for 2008, a 9.5% increase over last year. (“$471 Billion, ‘War on Terror’ Not Included”, Truthout, November 7, 2007)
• Quote from President Dwight Eisenhower, 1961: “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exist and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” “What has unfolded in the ensuing years and particularly under the Bush administration is nothing less than the very scenario Eisenhower darkly prophesized.” (Blackwater, by Jeremy Scahill, page xviii)
• The national security budget for 2008 is $459.3 billion and the President is asking for another $201 billion in “emergency” supplemental defense spending for the war on terror, thus totaling $660 billion. Overall, since 9/11, including 2008 funds, US taxpayers and lenders will have provided more than $4 trillion for national defense by the end of next September. (A look at the 2008 defense budget, Gordon Adams, Truthout.com, November 15, 2007)
• While we have not been attacked on US soil since 9/11, one could argue that we aren’t any safer as the situation has deteriorated in Afghanistan, Pakistan is teetering on the edge of political disintegration with the strength of Al Quada and the Taliban increasing, a potential conflict with Iran on the horizon, Turkey and the Kurds in conflict, and with oil prices soaring, the region that is playing such an important role in keeping our economy going is very unstable. (A look at the 2008 defense budget, Gordon Adams, Truthout.com, November 15, 2007)
• Furthermore, 38% of the defense budget goes to researching the next generation of military hardware, in some cases searching for an enemy that isn’t even apparent on the horizon, for example, $8.7 billion for continued pursuit of a national missile defense system, when no one is even close to having the capacity to pose such a threat. (A look at the 2008 defense budget, Gordon Adams, Truthout.com, November 15, 2007)
• The Bush administration is sharply increasing its use of military aid as a reward for countries that cooperate with its war on terrorism, despite concerns about human rights and political instability, according to the Center for Defense Information. After analyzing large increases in government and commercial US arms sales in recent years to 25 countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa that have become allies against Islamist militancy since September 11, 2001, half the countries were identified by the State Department in 2006 as having serious, grave or significant human rights problems. . (U.S. boosting military aid in terrorism fight: study, Reuters, November 5, 2007)
• Furthermore government-to-government US arms sales to these countries increased to $3.9 billion in 2006 from about $400 million a year earlier. This accounted for 22% of the total $18 billion in US foreign military sales in 2006. Government projections for 2007 and 2008 show that “the trend is continuing in a steep upward climb.” . (U.S. boosting military aid in terrorism fight: study, Reuters, November 5, 2007)
• In a major initiative these years, Washington announced in July it would funnel military aid worth more than $43 billion to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states over 10 years to help protect them against Iran and fears of spillover from militant chaos in Iraq. . (U.S. boosting military aid in terrorism fight: study, Reuters, November 5, 2007)
• Direct commercial sales, in which U.S. weapons manufacturers strike deals overseen by the State Department, stood at over $3 billion for the same countries during the period from $2002 through 2006. . (U.S. boosting military aid in terrorism fight: study, Reuters, November 5, 2007)
• On November 27, 2007 the Bush Administration announced that it formally committed American to a long-term military presence in Iraq. The agreement commits the US forces to defending the government of Iraq from internal and external threats as well as fighting al-Qaida and “all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation” while, in return, Iraq pledged itself to “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq” which experts read as a potential bonanza for American oil companies. (Bush Commits Troops to Iraq for the Long Term, The Guardian UK, November 27, 2007)
• The agreement, because it is not a treaty, will not be subject to oversight by Congress. Maiki indicated that he intends to seek the renewal of the UN security council mandate for Iraq for one more year when it expires in December (although has been noted previously, a majority of those in the Iraqi parliament have told the UN quite explicitly they do not want to extend the mandate). (Bush Commits Troops to Iraq for the Long Term, The Guardian UK, November 27, 2007)
• Iraq’s Maliki government’s request for an “enduring” strategic security relationship with the U.S. may mean that 50,000 U.S. military troops and 50,000-75,000 US. Contractors will be in Iraq for decades. While confined at 14 “permanent” bases built by the U.S., their role will be to backstop newly trained Iraqi military and police forces, but the agreement also contains an agreement for preferential treatment from the Iraqi government to American corporations. (An “Enduring” Relationship for Security and Enduring an Occupation for Oil, Ann Wright Truthout perspective, December 5, 2007)
• With projections ranging now up to and beyond 1 million in Iraqi dead since the invasion and four million refugees outside the country or internally displaced, water, sewage and electrical infrastructure destroyed, health care and education in a very poor state and Iraqis feeling very unsafe, most Iraqis want their occupiers to leave the country, believing that the main reason the U.S. remains there is because “enduring security” means “enduring profit” for U.S. oil companies, as they continue to resist President Bush’s benchmark No. 1, the hydrocarbon law, written by U.S. oil companies in 2003 to provide sweetheart deals for the international privatization of Iraq’s “undiscovered” oil fields. They know that this “undiscovered” oil is close to the surface, easy to access and of high quality. As stated in a report issued by Vice President Chaney’s Energy Task Force in 2003, the Middle East oil producers “will remain central to the world oil security” and argued that oil producers should open their fields to foreign investment. (An “Enduring” Relationship for Security and Enduring an Occupation for Oil, Ann Wright Truthout perspective, December 5, 2007)
• Certainly for the private contractors who will serve the U.S. troops and contractors, it means multi-billion contracts over years and for U.S. oil companies, it means a U.S. government-financed security force to protect their oil projects. For the U.S. taxpayer, it could mean trillions of dollars in cost focused on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the threat of terrorism in the U.S. (An “Enduring” Relationship for Security and Enduring an Occupation for Oil, Ann Wright Truthout perspective, December 5, 2007)
• Under the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, which President Bush signed in mid-November, the United States is barred from establishing permanent bases in iraq and from exerting control over Iraqi oil. The 2008 Defense Authorization Act, to be signed in a couple of weeks, includes similar language. But in the Appropriations Act, Bush released a signing statement exempting him from several of the law’s provisions, but did not include the pre-emption of establishing permanent bases. According to some experts this rule, however, can be dodged by the question “What is permanent?” Our bases in Korea have been there for 60 years, but are they permanent? (Bush-Maliki Agreement Defies US Laws, Iraqi Parliament, Truthout Report, November 30 2007)
• The phrasing of the language as a cooperative effort between two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests” provides another defense because the base can be given to the host nation while the US military stays there. The bases in Saudi Arabia are an example. (Bush-Maliki Agreement Defies US Laws, Iraqi Parliament, Truthout Report, November 30 2007)
• There are also possible loopholes when it comes Iraq’s oil. Neither the US Congress nor the Iraqi Parliament were asked to review the declaration of principles before it was released and since it was an agreement, it doesn’t have to ratified, like a treaty, by the US Senate. Even though Iraq’s Constitution specifies that “international treaties and agreements” must be ratified by two-thirds of its Council of Representatives, General Douglas Lute, assistant to President Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan, said that the declaration of principles did not “rise to that level of negotiated document” and “there was a general agreement” among Iraqi leaders that the declaration was a “positive step.” This flies in the face that the Iraqi Parliament stands firmly opposed to a continued US presence in Iraq and circumventing their authority is a risky precedent to set because it further erodes the little legitimacy that the Iraqi government currently has and the deal being proposed could be rejected by the Iraqi public. (Bush-Maliki Agreement Defies US Laws, Iraqi Parliament, Truthout Report, November 30 2007)
• Global warming poses a national security threat to the United States according to several U.S. government studies. The effects of global warming could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water and, eventually, to direct involvement by the U.S. military according to an April, 2007 report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change”, which was commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses. (Global Warming Called Security Threat, New York Times, April 15, 2007)
• Last year the Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that the “true” cost of the war would ultimately exceed $1 trillion, maybe even $2 trillion. Based on a report prepared for the Democratic Majority on the Joint Economic Committee of the House and Senate warns that without a significant change of course in Iraq, the long-term cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be closer to $3.5 trillion. (Iraq, Now and Forever, Bob Herbert, Columnist, New York Times, December 4, 2007)
• This estimate includes the long-term costs of treating the wounded and disabled; interest and other costs associated with borrowing to finance the war; the money needed to repair or replace military equipment; the increased costs of military recruitment and retention; and such difficult to gauge but very real costs as the loss of productivity from those who have been killed or wounded. (Iraq, Now and Forever, Bob Herbert, Columnist, New York Times, December 4, 2007)
• The direct appropriations are already 10 times the amount of the administration’s original estimates for the entire cost of the war. (Iraq, Now and Forever, Bob Herbert, Columnist, New York Times, December 4, 2007)
• The reduced violence in Iraq in recent months stems from 3 significant developments, but the clock is running on all of them. Increased number of Sunni Arab rebels who have turned their guns on jihadists instead of American troops; a six-month halt to military action by the militia of Shiite leader, Moktada al-Sadr; and the increased number of American troops on the streets. But with reduction of American troop levels, 3 months to go on Sadr’s pledge to halt his offensive and increasingly bellicose pronouncements recently and the fact that rewards of government jobs to the Sunni insurgents haven’t materialized (only 5% of the 77,000 Sunni volunteers have been given jobs in the Iraqi security forces), the situation is fragile. At the same time, Sadr is working to consolidate Baghdad as a Shiite city and gain power over the Supreme Council. Bottom line: the situation is very unstable. (A Calmer Iraq: Fragile, and Possibly Fleeting, New York Times, December 5, 2007)