The economic argument for ending the war

March 20, 2008

If you’re unmoved by the national security arguments against the war in Iraq, and the strategic arguments, the military arguments, the moral arguments, the personal arguments, the practical arguments, and the diplomatic arguments, there are always the economic arguments.

Senator Barack Obama linked the fragile American economy to a “careless and incompetent execution” of the Iraq conflict, imploring voters in [Charleston, W.Va.] today to weigh the trickle-down, pocketbook consequences of the war as they choose a successor to President Bush.

“When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war,” Mr. Obama told an audience at the University of Charleston. “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

This strikes me as both good policy and good politics — it helps make these costs personal.

At the same time, this approach builds on the arguments from Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who recently explained, “For a fraction of the cost of this war, we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.” For that matter, Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, noted that the money spent on the war each day is “enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.”

In Obama’s speech, he also went after John McCain, while “barely mentioning his Democratic rival.”

“No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush-term. That’s an outcome America can’t afford,” Mr. Obama said. “Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned.”

Mr. McCain, who was in London on a leg of his week-long tour through Europe and the Middle East, quickly responded with his own forceful criticism of Mr. Obama’s plan to remove combat troops from Iraq.

“On national security, Senator Obama would rather rehash the past than look forward with resolve to address fundamental challenges and opportunities we have today to secure our future,” said Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain.

First of all, I’m glad Obama targeted McCain, not Clinton. My only quibble with Obama’s speech yesterday was that it included a few too many shots at his Democratic rival, some of which seemed unnecessary.

Second of all, McCain thinks Obama wants to “rehash the past”? Putting aside McCain’s obvious attempts to avoid responsibility and accountability, isn’t the McCain candidacy based almost exclusively on his “experience”? And if so, doesn’t that necessarily mean McCain is all about rehashing the past?

Yes hammering Mccain on this issue is important, they need to portray him as too senile and too out of touch with reality both in security and in economics

  • I would argue that “those few too many shots at his Democratic rival” are based on the necessary strategy of fighting a two-front war. Obama has to fight both a primary campaign opponent (Fortress Clinton) and a general-election campaign opponent (John “Eternal War Without End/Spittin’ Image of Nikita Khrushchev” McCain) simultaneously.

  • “I’m glad Obama targeted McCain, not Clinton”

    Me, too. I’m really getting sick of Billary praising McCain and trashing Obama. They don’t give a damn about the Democratic Party, and it’s high time the Democratic Party returned the favor.

    I was furious yesterday that I couldn’t find Obama’s Iraq speech on YouTube. Wonder if today’s economic speech will show up anywhere?

  • It’s always good to put things in terms that people can understand. Who can fathom what $500 billion would buy?

    As of today, the war cost us all
    $4,681 per household.
    $1,721 per person.
    $341.4 million per day.

    http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

    People can think of other things they would do with all that money, and the Republicans always get a big cheer when they talk about how the government is spending YOUR money, so turn that around. Tell people how much its costing THEM to keep this REPUBLICAN war going on.

    I would also tie in McCain’s admitted ignorance about economic matters.

    Go Barak!

  • I agree with Steve. If he stays away from personal smear-type attacks and stereotyping he should be able to do both. He seems to be able to handle it.

    This bringing the cost of war home is brilliant. I could give him a few pointers on the personal cost of the war that is unique to military families, like supplimenting income (since soldiers aren’t paid very well) and the cost of having to take care of their business while they are overseas. The soldiers themselves bear the costs of divorce, custody battles, lost job opportunities (employers do discriminate in hiring soldiers because of the possible loss of talent while deployed), lost raises and promotions due to interrupted careers that will impact them for their entire careers in some cases, the cost of having others raise your children (in the case of single mother soldiers or where both spouses deploy at once).

  • I thought his speech yesterday was brilliant, especially since it tied Hillary Clinton to George Bush and John McCain’s war. I kinda heard Reagan saying “there you go again, George, John, Hillary.” But I’m glad he’s turning away from her and towards McCain and November.

    And I truly beleive he’s the only Dem. candidate left who can beat McCain on Iraq, Natinal Security etc, simply because of one speech in 2002. Hillary can’t go after McCain, or tie him to Bus as effectively as Barrack can, simply because she’s already tied herself to them anyway. And it’s brilliant to tie the cost of the war to our glomy economic reality.

    And I sincerelly hope the speeches of the last 3 days will prove to the Supers that he IS Presidential and they choose to end this thing as quickly after PA as they can. (Or sooner, if she starts damaging him and the party more.)

  • War and inflation – who can’t see the obvious relationship? What usually precedes an inflationary cycle? Why of course, a recession! Here we go on that rollicoaster ride we were on immediately after the Vietnam engagement. You know, the beautiful inflation-ridden 1970s.

    I wonder if in his infinite wisdom, our unbeloved Mr. Bush will bring back that good ol’ Jerry Ford program, WIN, Whip Inflation Now campaign. It was bogus then, and from what I am seeing now, any attempt by this adminstration to combat the catastrophic policies it has laid upon us all will be bogus now. November 08 can’t come soon enough. In the meantime, I’d like to see some of our legislative leaders begin the process of impeachment. I’d like them to start now so we can put behind us the urgent business left unfinished up to now – the business of weighing and judging the extent of damage done to our way of life by the rogues in the WH under Mr. Bush’s tenure. Mr. Bush will, no doubt, be judged most harshly as it is he who ultimately bears the burden of his own anti-democratic tendencies and his own penchant to dismantle anything Constitutional in today’s America. -Kevo

  • Okay… I’m no economist, but when we say things like:

    “As of today, the war cost us all
    $4,681 per household.
    $1,721 per person.
    $341.4 million per day.”     – Racer X

    It belies the fact that we’re only feeling some of the economic costs of the war (like the increase in gas prices that Sen. Obama mentions). The big problem is that to deter increasing negative perceptions of the war, Bush & Co. have funneled all war costs straight to the National Debt (including the cost of maintaining the Iraqi Army and “Awakening Squads” that act as local militias).

    The government isn’t really spending our money. They’re spending the money of foreign countries and private investors, and they’re charging it on America’s big shiny credit card. War-wise, our taxes are just going to fund the normal operations of the military and to pay down the interest on the debt…

    The falling cost of the dollar (diluted value due to massive debt) and rising cost of oil are just the first signs of the economic costs of the war. Those numbers posted by Racer X aren’t what the war has cost us so far, they’re what we still owe.

  • Senator Barack Obama linked the fragile American economy to a “careless and incompetent execution” of the Iraq conflict, imploring voters in [Charleston, W.Va.] today to weigh the trickle-down, pocketbook consequences of the war as they choose a successor to President Bush.

    This strikes me as both good policy and good politics — it helps make these costs personal.

    It’s a lie, but as long as it “looks” personal, right?

  • @ #12: It’s a lie, but as long as it “looks” personal, right?

    So break this down for those of us in the cheap seats. Are you suggesting that my tax dollars are not paying for a fraudulently-designed and incompetently-executed war in Iraq?

  • Matt, @15

    What SteveL might be trying to say is that, even if we weren’t spending that sh**load of money on I-wreck, we still wouldn’t see a penny of it at home; the fRights’ mal-administration would have managed to pocket it through some other trick. Right, SteveL? That’s what you meant, no?

    Or did you mean it in the sense that NB is talking about, @11? That the costs Obama mentioned are nowhere near the *real* costs of the war; what we’re paying now is peanuts compared to what our children and grandchildren will have to pay over decades. Is that the lie you meant, SteveL?

  • The lie might be that RepubCo is concerned that Social Security lasts longer than the next 12 hours.

    The lie might be that RepubCo thinks a less privileged child should have any kind of “Head Start” at all.

    The lie might be that RepubCo has any interest in helping low income students get a college education.

    The lie might be that RepubCo sees any benefit at all in letting one thin dime trickle down to the hoi polloi when that dime would be better off if it were just thrown away on a conveniently bottomless “war”.

    Having money just raises unrealistic expectations. This country isn’t for the many, it’s for the few. The sooner the teeming masses learn that opportunity and equality are the real lie, the sooner they can put their knee pads back on and get back to work for those who truly understand the value of money and how it should be used.

    The lie might be that good luck is for anybody who can’t afford the best luck that money can buy.

  • What SteveIL might be saying is not to worry, because it isn’t really “our” money that will pay for the occupation, it is the money of our children and grandchildren. They’ll pay for it, plus interest. Reagan let the cat out of the bag a long time ago when he told us that not one red cent of our tax dollars go to funding the operation of the government.

    Operating funds are borrowed and then tax receipts pay the borrowed money back. There’s a good reason that the Fed and the Income Tax were established in the same year.

    In 2006, $140B of the DoD budget was wrapped up in interest payments; of course, the money to pay the interest was borrowed. Using one credit card to pay another credit card is not, generally, considered the best path to financial freedom.

    But as we already know, there is no freedom agenda.

  • A simple question every reporter in America should ask John McCain:

    What’s your plan (and please include specifics) to pay for endless war in Iraq without bankrupting America?

    • Comments are closed.