The Meaning of Success

The war in Iraq recently entered its sixth year, and the long nightmare of the Iraqi people continues with no end in sight. After five years of carnage; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; 4,000 US troops killed; a vast fortune spent; what has been achieved? Events surrounding the 5th anniversary shed some illuminating light on the present state of American democracy. Consider the establishment media. The present consensus narrative, endlessly reinforced by recent Bush administration media opportunities that receive front page and/or prime time coverage on the TV news networks (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), is that the troop "surge" is working. Cheney recently made a "stealth" visit to Iraq, and proclaimed that the war, though not without its difficulties, has been a "... successful endeavor." Bush too claimed "success" in a recent speech to Defense Department personnel at the Pentagon. If what we are witnessing in Iraq is success, then one shudders to think what failure would look like! For a less hyperbolic look at what "success" in Iraq looks like, see the sobering report by Dahr Jamail.

Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.

One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.

$ 3,000,000,000,000.00

Well, that's a lot of zeros! Three trillion (yes, trillion) dollars worth to be precise. That is a conservative estimate of the cost of the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as estimated in a new book by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes. It may seem a daunting task, to estimate the cost of the largest American foreign policy boondoggle ever, but as professor Stiglitz indicated, it's basically just an addition problem, so, at least the math is pretty easy, there's just a lot of it! Note that this number is conservative! Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that a more realistic number for the full costs is in the vicinity of 5 - 7 trillion.

Let's try and get our heads around that number. For comparison, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States is in the vicinity of 13 - 14 trillion dollars. So, we're looking at a cost approaching 1/4 of the ENTIRE economic output of the country for a whole year. Put another way, that's more than $10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. I'd call that staggering, but the "Spender in Chief," doesn't seem to get it, for Bush, the wars have apparently been a plus. When asked if he agreed with comments that the war in Iraq is hurting the economy, Bush quipped, "I don’t think so. I think, actually, the spending on the war might help with jobs." Rather ironic to hear a so-called conservative Republican plug the war as a three trillion dollar jobs program! But in Bush-land anything is possible.

Of course, the White House was none to pleased with the fully sourced and documented conclusions of these impeccably credentialed American academics. So they rolled out one of their professional obfuscators, in this case the insipid Tony Fratto, to set the record straight. According to Fratto, “People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11.” Fratto's comments are appalling in both their arrogance and contempt for the truth. "The cost of doing nothing, and the cost of failure?" Is he serious? The additional cost of doing nothing, at least in the case of Iraq, would be, well, nothing! Zip, nada, the big goose egg. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, so any cost associated with Iraq "containment" would have been as before. As for the cost of failure, that too would also be zero, since Iraq was an illegal, immoral war of choice. What we are all burdened with now is the cost of the failed policy of the president Fratto defends.

But Fratto didn't have the decency to stop there, he also had this gem, “It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?” Again, Fratto wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the backside. Our own government has stated that the war in Iraq has resulted in more instability and insecurity, not less. Investment? Remind me to never let Fratto make a stock deal for me. So, with no real facts of his own to refute Stiglitz's claims, the only thing Fratto can do is to try and impugn the reputation and patriotism of one of our most distinguished economists. I'd call that disgusting, but it's just another day in this White House. And perhaps the most Orwellian aspect of these statements is that this is from the administration that sold the war as one that would "pay for itself." All that Iraqi black gold was going to flow in, and it would only cost about 1.7 billion to patch the place back up! So, they were in the ball-park, only off by a factor of 2,000!

Well, since Fratto brought up the notion of investment, let's see exactly what 3 trillion dollars can buy:

• ~4,000 US servicemen (and women) killed in Iraq
• ~30,000 US servicemen (and women) wounded in Iraq
  
• Upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths since the US-led invasion
• 3 - 5 million Iraqi refugees; either having fled the country or internally displaced
• Much of Iraq physically devastated
  
• Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, Waterboarding, etc, etc.
  
• Stature and Standing of US in the world demolished
  

Well, you get the picture, and it isn't a pretty one, is it? What if we were to stay in Iraq for, say, 100 years, as presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has suggested might be necessary to achieve "victory" in Iraq? Those costs would make 3 trillion dollars look like walking around money. When such statements are made, and the staggering costs considered, one has to wonder, who among us of right mind could even consider handing four more years to the Republican party that brought us this President, and such a calamity.