Wars? What wars?
Facebook
The Oregonian
Oregonian Editorial Board
10/23/2010
Repeal health care reform. Reduce the deficit. Cut taxes. Increase transparency. Rein in the banks. Block socialism. Reject the failed policies that drove the country into the ditch. Candidates hustling for votes are sounding a multitude of themes in their campaigns, but by and large are ignoring one that should be front and center in the national debate. In Oregon, where two young Marines recently killed in action are being mourned by their families, the silence is equally deafening. Why isn't anyone talking about the 7 1/2-year-old war in Iraq and the 9-year-old war in Afghanistan? At a time when voters are being asked to choose the people who will govern the country, the nation seems to have gone mute about two long-running military campaigns that are not only adding enormously to the national debt, but taking an accelerating and expanding toll on a minority of our fellow citizens. The wars are far away, in complicated, turbulent places, and most of us aren't serving in uniform or living with -- or without -- someone who is. That does not excuse our lack of concern. The governor of Oregon has attended more than a hundred funerals for people who died in the course of their service on the other side of the world. Each time, he has lamented that they were the best Oregon has to offer. And now their families, friends and communities are deprived of the contributions they would have made, had they lived. If you care about the human toll in death, injury, psychological stress and social turmoil, you should care about the wars. At the same time, the two wars already have cost $1.1 trillion, according to the calculations of the nonprofit National Priorities Project. Each day, on average, the country spends another $500 million for military operations, security, reconstruction and all the other expenses required when a country fights a war. And with 50,000 troops still in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan, the end to this commitment remains a long way off. If you care about government spending, you should care about the wars. At the same time, after nine years, consider the state of society in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has lost roughly 100,000 civilians since the U.S. invasion in 2003 -- some at the hands of coalition troops and some at the hands of militants. It has seen an enormous drain of intellectual talent, while creating a global refugee crisis. Its institutions are only now resuming a semblance of efficiency, and the emerging government of likely-to-be-permanent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, backed by Iran, is likely to be as feared by Iraqi Sunnis as Saddam Hussein was feared by Iraqi Shiites and Kurds. The story is similar in Afghanistan, although the country was miles behind the condition of Iraq when the war began in 2001. Today, the United States and its allies are propping up a corrupt and ineffectual president, who is engaged in active truce talks with the brutal extremists he replaced. Afghan society remains desperately poor, and wave after wave of armed fighters washes over villages where residents must submit to the most imminent threat simply to survive. If you care about the state of these countries, whether for humanitarian or political reasons, you should care about the wars. To be sure, candidates aren't solely to blame for letting their attention drift. We in the media should do more to challenge them to talk about the national course in Iraq and Afghanistan. The public, too, has an obligation to return the debate to the human and financial costs we incur by waging these two wars. We owe the troops, their families and ourselves at least that much.
