The daily cost of the Iraq occupation: $720 million
What is a meaningful way of understanding the immense amount of money the United States spends in Iraq each day? This simple video by American Friends Service Committee compellingly gets this point across.
How does one most fairly frame this issue of what the United States is spending in Iraq? It’s not only a matter of whether we should be in Iraq for strategic reasons (every reason presented by the Bush Administration has proven to be untrue). It’s also a matter of whether there are vastly superior ways of spending that immense amount of money (there are, as illustrated by the video below).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnq6cD5jk1Q[/youtube]
I’ve previously tried to illustrate the immense expense we are incurring in Iraq here , here , here and here.
- The Iraq invasion has cost more than one trillion dollars. How much is one trillion?
- The financial cost of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan
- It’s official and it’s contrary to Bush rhetoric: Iraq occupation is the primary recruitment vehicle for terrorist organizations
- Director Phil Donahue discusses the sanitizing of the Iraq occupation.
- How much money have we spent to fight the so-called “war” in Iraq?
Bush’s current plan for Iraq seems clear: spend whatever money and manpower it takes to prevent Iraq from becoming a civil war nightmare during Bush’s term in office. It doesn’t matter that the money and manpower expenditures are completely unsustainable: what matters to Bush is that he prevent the dung from hitting the fan until after he’s gone. What happens to America or Iraq after he leaves office doesn’t matter to him in the least. Indeed, if things blow up (literally or figuratively) after Bush is gone (and he is presumably replaced with a Democrat), Republicans will just blame the Democrats for the mess. So, in some ways, Republicans actually have a vested interested in making sure Iraq remains “a success” while Bush is in office, and then explodes after he is gone.
The same thing happens in companies: a CEO will cut “expenses” (e.g., project investments, employee training, equipment maintenance, etc.) to make the company look more profitable in the short term, which drives up short-term stock price. Then, before the unsustainable strategy causes visible damage to the company’s financial performance, the CEO cashes out his stock options and leaves the company. When the new management comes in, they and everyone else realize the company is in a shambles and the stock price tanks, thus making the company’s previous “glory years” coincide with the former CEO’s efforts. End result: the former CEO claims the “glory years” were due to his great leadership, because look at how great the company did while he was there and then how it tanked after he left. It’s an age-old practice.