|
LET'S GET A FEW THINGS STRAIGHT - CONTINUED
By Edward L. Daley
September 25, 2003
Yet amazingly, to this day there are high-ranking Democrats in our Congress who would like nothing more than for everyone to believe that we not only rushed to war, but that we also did so "unilaterally"! Pardon me for resorting to using the vernacular WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! Not only didn't we rush to war, but along that extended and painful road to victory we built a coalition of some 48 countries. Here's the list just in case you doubt my veracity.
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
Still the opposition party's leaders insist upon using the word unilateral when they talk about the Iraq campaign. They also insist that Saddam Hussein's regime had nothing to do with the war against terrorists and the nations that sponsor them. How anyone could believe that the Baath party was not involved with international terrorists groups is beyond my ability to comprehend. We've known for years that Hussein's regime was dealing with terrorist groups all over the Middle East, from Hamas and Hezbollah to Al-Qaeda itself. Papers found in the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service after the initial stages of the war show that an Al-Qaeda envoy was invited to Baghdad in March of 1998 for the purpose of establishing a relationship between that group and Saddam, based on a mutual hatred of America, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Osama Bin Laden himself admitted that he was willing to ally Al-Qaeda with Saddam's regime out of mutual interest in an audio tape released in February of this year. Furthermore, a mid-level terrorist operative associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of Bin Laden's top associates, was captured in Baghdad in April, 2003, and Zarqawi had traveled to Iraq in May of 2002 seeking medical treatment after Al-Qaeda was driven from Afghanistan. Yet, in spite of these and many other pieces of intelligence information linking Hussein to Al-Qaeda, the Democrats refuse to admit any sort of connection.
Recently, a news item appeared in virtually every major newspaper and on most of the television networks with the headline 'No link between Iraq, Sept. 11 attacks' or a nearly identical one. Even Fox News, usually characterized as a conservative network, used the headline, however, the main thrust of the story was that although the president admitted he has yet to find proof that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of that fateful day in 2001, there was no doubt in his mind that the deposed dictator had been linked to the terrorists who committed those acts.
I have to wonder how many people heard or read that headline without bothering to delve into the story, taking the "no link to September 11" line at face value. It's obvious to me that the story within the story is the more important one. Just because we haven't found evidence of Saddam's complicity in the atrocities of 9/11 doesn't mean they aren't there to be found. What's truly significant is that the man was definitely linked to the network of people who brought about the worst terrorist attack in world history! Keep in mind that we are not only fighting the terrorists themselves, but the governments of the world that support them. To suggest that the war in Iraq is not a part of the global war on terror is preposterous.
Now let me move on to another accusation being hurled at the president these days by the liberal elitists in Washington D.C. and around the country. It is the claim that our government has no "exit strategy" for the war in Iraq. General Wesley Clark, who only a few days ago became the 10th major player to enter the presidential race on the Democrat's side, recently said "that's what we all ought to be asking this administration, because they don't have an exit strategy. Their original exit strategy was to go through the middle east like a child playing hopscotch and hop from country to country."
Well Mr. Clark, perhaps you'd like to illuminate us all as to the sort of exit strategy YOU had while commanding the NATO forces in Kosovo. If I'm not mistaken, we still have thousands of troops stationed there, as well as in Bosnia. As a matter of fact, we still have Americans stationed in Japan (47,000), Korea (37,500) and Germany (70,000) after more than half a century. We've only been in Iraq for 6 months! If you really want to know what our exit strategy is, I'll tell you in simplest of terms. Our strategy is to leave when the job is done, and not one minute sooner! It's the only rational exit strategy possible under the circumstances. You, as a former general in the U.S. Army, should be able to understand that.
Oh, and let's not forget all the talk about there not being enough U.S. troops in Iraq to handle the task before us. I'll make this short and sweet. General Tommy Franks, General John Abizaid, General Richard Myers and Secretary Don Rumsfeld all agree that the current number of troops in that country is sufficient. I'm willing to take their word for it. If they didn't truly believe the quantity to be enough, why then would they have reduced the number of them by 20,000 over the past 4 months, replacing them with a smaller number of allied forces who have less training?
There's also the common misconception being fostered by the left in this country that the Iraqi citizenry doesn't want us there. The fact is that the vast majority of iraqis want us to stay in their country, many of whom express a fear that we will depart too soon, leaving them to face the wrath of the remnants of the previous regime. According to the first survey in the history of "free" Iraq, created by order of the Iraqi Center for Surveys, 83% of Iraqis want American troops to remain in Iraq until the indigenous population is able to run the country on it's own.
Finally, I'd like to address the question of the increasing costs of the war to Americans. Again and again I hear people say that they think the war is costing too much. While it is true that the bill keeps going up, it is also true that we have little choice but to pay that bill. I believe it's fair to point out at this time that our entire defense budget amounts to about 4% of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States. That's less than the total budget of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the amount spent on Social Security in this country. Furthermore, in 1944, our defense spending amounted to 38% of the U.S. economy's output, or nearly ten times what we are currently spending percentage-wise.
As for the newest charge by Democrats that the president is not explaining what the additional $87 billion being appropriated in Congress will be used for, I too wanted to have a better understanding of the situation, so I looked up the facts. Ted Kennedy has stated "I think the American taxpayers are entitled to know where that money is going," and I agree, although I cannot claim, as he and many others have, that the information is not readily available. It took me less than five minutes to find the following information, and I'm confident that there is a lot more of it out there for anyone who is willing to do a little work.
To begin with, according to the Coalition Provisional Authority 's web-site, $21 billion will be used by that organization toward rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. That amount is broken down in the following manner.
$2 billion to fund public safety initiatives, including border enforcement, police, fire and customs services.
$2 billion to establish a new Iraqi army and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps.
$1 billion to develop a judicial system, prisons and other institutions necessary to sustain civil society.
$6 billion to make constant, dependable supplies of electricity available for all at a fair price.
$2 billion to rehabilitate the oil infrastructure and assure steady supplies for Iraqi domestic consumption.
$3.7 billion to begin making fresh, drinkable water available for all at a fair price and to construct sewer systems to carry away and clean up waste.
$1 billion to repair your water resources systems such as canals and drainage.
$800 million to repair transportation facilities such as harbors and airports and to repair and expand your telecommunications so that all Iraqis have access to affordable, functioning telephones.
$500 million to upgrade housing and public buildings and to repair Iraq's roads and bridges.
$900 million to improve and expand Iraq's public health services by constructing, repairing and equipping hospitals and primary care clinics.
$300 million to invest in job training and other initiatives to revitalize the private business sector.
$51 billion will be used for military operations in iraq
$15 billion will be used for military operations in afghanistan
According the the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), total defense spending for the year 2003 is $364.6 billion. It has been broken down in the following manner.
Personnel - 93.4 billion
Operations and Maintenance - 129.4 billion
Procurement - 71.4 billion
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation - 56.7 billion
Military Construction - 6.2 billion
Family Housing - 4.2 billion
Revolving and Management Funds and Other - 3.1 billion
Total defense spending for the year 2004 is $379.9 billion. It has been broken down in the following manner.
Personnel - $98.6 billion
Operations and Maintenance - $133.2 billion
Procurement - $74.4 billion
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation - $61.8 billion
Military Construction - $5 billion
Family Housing - $4 billion
Revolving and Management Funds and Other - $2.8 billion
All moneys being appropriated for U.S. defense will be used variously for, but will not be limited to, the following:
Deployment of robotic, unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) such as Global Hawk unmanned aircraft
Employment of advanced laser communications satellites
Advanced weapons systems
New generation of ships, including a more capable aircraft carrier (CVN-21) and destroyer (DD-X)
Airmobile assets, intelligence/surveillance, and digital battlefield communications
Deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missile threats
Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP)
Recruitment
Training
Airlift Program
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization and Maintenance
Chemical Demilitarization
Space
Modernization of military services? intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare systems
Personnel pay, housing and quality of life enhancement
Commissaries and exchanges
Health care
Retirement benefits
I trust that this data will be helpful to Senator Kennedy, his colleagues in the Senate and to every other American who has expressed concerns over the lack of information regarding our nation's defense spending. If it isn't enough, I apologize, but do keep this one question in mind. How many people asked Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson or practically any other president to specify exactly how they intended to spend their defense funding allotments? I submit to you that such numbers would prove to be extremely low indeed if the issue was investigated.
|
