$100,000: Gone in 60 Seconds

Priorities, friends. We need them.

Iraq war is costing $100,000 per minute.

The cost of military operations in 2006 is $35 billion higher than what Congress had estimated a few months ago that the Defense Department would need this year. The higher costs are occurring even as the Pentagon is planning to reduce troop levels in Iraq in coming months, reflecting the continuing wear and damage to military equipment in desert combat, the need to upgrade protection for U.S. troops and the effort to train and equip Iraqi forces.

No large-scale reconstruction projects are included in the spending, officials said. [!!!!!]

Currently, the Defense Department says it is spending about $4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, or about $100,000 per minute.

With the $240 billion we've spent on this illegal war of choice, we could have:

• funded all AIDS programs for 23 years
• paid for 31,610,368 children to attend a year of Head Start
• fully funded hunger programs for 9 years
• insured 142,780,859 children for one year
• provided 11,569,642 students four-year scholarships at public universities
• saved New Orleans

Comments

[Josef K]

Ouch. I knew it was a shocking waste of money, but it's still a wake-up call to see the stats written down like that. I think the UK spent over £500 million, despite our "steady now" Chancellor.

[ae]

Josef K, it is shocking. And despicable. I heard on the BBC the other day that it would take only $4 billion to immunize all children in 75 countries. That's one month of this needless, awful war. It is sickening, and I hope to any and all deities that these criminals get their comeuppance. Americans are starting to wake up from their middle-class lazy haze; now, if they can turn that newfound wakefulness into votes for justice, we'll be getting somewhere.

[Josef K]

I really, really hope so. This kind of hopeful movement has a tendency to get derailed into something else, though. My strategy at the moment is borrowed from Michael Moore: talk in their terms. Talk about how much the war is costing in financial terms; skip the stuff about death and human rights and democracy and accountability.

[ae]

Far be it for me to 2nd guess Moore's strategy. It's worked in the past and, sadly, talking about people's wallets might be more effective than talking about their hearts/minds/ethics/consciences. Finance over ethics, pretty sad. I feel like we're losing either way, actually.

And I should say that I haven't bet the farm on Murkans getting their acts together, but more of us feel like the train is off the track than the loudmouth minority who gets all the press. Have I mentioned that I hate the Press?

[Josef K]

Have I mentioned that I hate the Press?

Me too, despite working in the industry.

[ae]

Josef K, you are clearly one of the good ones! Some of my best friends are... =)

But do not even get me started about our atrocious Press and their so-called standards here in corporatist Murka, or we'll be here all week! No matter how mad y'all may get at the Beeb, that institution brings tears to my eyes, because, you know, they have actual journalists working there whose brains have not yet been fully colonized by Rupert Murdoch and Associates. We get the fluffy shiny news reader here who wouldn't know a challenging question if it bit her/him in the ass. Fie!

[Josef K]

Although the BBC frustrates me sometimes (a lot), and I worry about the direction it's going in, I still cherish it. The problem in general with the press (the British press, anyway) is that you have hundreds of idealistic left-wingers churning out right-wing crap because it's the only way of keeping a job. If you don't like it, you do what I've been doing: write for "worthy" publications for free (or very little money) and do temp jobs to pay the rent. Most people would rather just stay in the industry and swallow a little pride.