Why $87 billion fight in Iraq is worth every cent

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | September 10 2003

[knighthawk]

With the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks only two days away, it is natural that the United States reflects on the outrages that so transformed the country, and on our response to them. President Bush, in a somber yet resolved televised address Sunday, revisited the reasons for our soldiers being in Iraq and sketched out the future of a conflict that is a source of concern for most Americans.

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places,'' said Bush. "Iraq is now the central front.'' Bush laid out three goals for that front--to destroy terrorist opposition there, to enlist the aid of other nations and to help Iraq become self-governing. That second goal might prove the most elusive. Having resisted America's call to enforce a chain of ignored U.N. resolutions, our erstwhile European allies--with some notable exceptions led by Britain and Poland--seem to prefer to remain aloof, punishing us and the Iraqis for our acting in the face of their inertia. We must be prepared to prevail without them.

It will not be cheap. Bush said he was asking Congress for a surprisingly high figure to finance the war: $87 billion. While Americans naturally focus on the cost--both in money and in lives spent--the Sept. 11 anniversary encourages us to view it a different way. The 9/11 terrorist attack has had no sequel on our soil, and while we can only speculate, the dynamic response to the attacks, first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, plus diligent pursuit of terrorists, at home and abroad, must certainly have been a factor. As expensive as the war is, it might prove to be a bargain if it succeeds in preventing another huge attack in this country.

The stakes could not be higher. Our enemies are watching what we do in Iraq. An abandoned Iraq would be more dangerous than ever. The wisdom of invading Iraq will always be questioned by some, yet the undeniable fact is: We're there now. Bush is correct for re-iterating that we will not cut and run because of losses, as in Somalia and Lebanon, telegraphing weakness on which terrorism feeds. We made a commitment to uproot Saddam Hussein and create a representative Iraq, because it seemed the best, most ambitious way to proceed. Those who counsel inaction will always have the edge in an argument, because the course not taken is never tested.

But those who are tapping their watch faces and wondering why, a full four months after the "official'' end of major combat in Iraq, Baghdad doesn't resemble candidates night at the Elks Hall should bear this in mind: Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, not only has nothing new been constructed at the site of the World Trade Center, but a memorial design has not even been agreed upon. This, in a nation unified in its desire to rebuild, unencumbered by revanchists and terror. How much more difficult is it, then, to rebuild in war-shattered Iraq, honeycombed with Saddam loyalists and imported terrorists? Yes, Iraq has turned out to be a bigger, tougher job than first thought. No one is suggesting that rebuilding something at the site of the WTC should be abandoned because it is too expensive or is taking too long. We should extend the same forbearance we grant ourselves in New York to our efforts in Iraq. In the end, it will be worth it.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[jimkress]

We can spend $87 billion and a few hundred lives in Iraq or $870 billion and thousands of lives in the US resulting from the attacks that would have been prevented by killing terrorism in Iraq.

Easy choice.

[dead]

[Wphile]

GREAT EDITORIAL! Love the reference to the "re-building" of the WTC!

[gathersnomoss]

Why not cut some spending on a social program in order to assure our safety? Never mind, pork projects are sacred for Ted and the boy's and the sheeple.

[gathersnomoss]

Jackass's. Perfect. Just unbelievable when we are coming up on two years after this country's worst attack on our soil.

[ohioWfan]

The stakes could not be higher. Our enemies are watching what we do in Iraq. An abandoned Iraq would be more dangerous than ever. The wisdom of invading Iraq will always be questioned by some, yet the undeniable fact is: We're there now. Bush is correct for re-iterating that we will not cut and run because of losses, as in Somalia and Lebanon, telegraphing weakness on which terrorism feeds. We made a commitment to uproot Saddam Hussein and create a representative Iraq, because it seemed the best, most ambitious way to proceed. Those who counsel inaction will always have the edge in an argument, because the course not taken is never tested.

Excellent!!

We MUST stay the course. We must stay strong, and we WILL prevail!

[finnman69]

I love this....

But those who are tapping their watch faces and wondering why, a full four months after the "official'' end of major combat in Iraq, Baghdad doesn't resemble candidates night at the Elks Hall should bear this in mind: Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, not only has nothing new been constructed at the site of the World Trade Center, but a memorial design has not even been agreed upon.

[american spirit]

I'll believe we have a real war on terrorism when our HomeSec storm-troopers stop shaking down gray haired folks in airports and instead are deployed at both borders with tons of high tech gear to detect even a mouse. Every terrorist group in the world is laughing at us because the fedgov can't seem to figure out where our real threat lies. It's a friggin' joke to have an alleged war on terrorism and NOT be resolute in protecting the borders. Our jails are full of illegals that may not have threatened a mass of people but they sure did "terrorize" someone or some family didn't they?

[knighthawk]

The 9/11 terrorist attack has had no sequel on our soil, and while we can only speculate, the dynamic response to the attacks, first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, plus diligent pursuit of terrorists, at home and abroad, must certainly have been a factor. As expensive as the war is, it might prove to be a bargain if it succeeds in preventing another huge attack in this country.

Middle East list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[cake_crumb]

"Having resisted America's call to enforce a chain of ignored U.N. resolutions, our erstwhile European allies--with some notable exceptions led by Britain and Poland--seem to prefer to remain aloof, punishing us and the Iraqis for our acting in the face of their inertia. We must be prepared to prevail without them.

"It will not be cheap."

Well said BUMP!! Ending Iraq's 12 year sponsorship of terrorism was CRUCIAL to the war on terror. Caving in to the Dems and the rest of the UNweenies is SUICIDE. Literally.

[cake_crumb]

"Every terrorist group in the world is laughing at us because the fedgov can't seem to figure out where our real threat lies."

Is that why they've been killing us on our own soil every day since 9/11/01?

[My2Cents]

Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself....

[NonValueAdded]

Wow, somebody gets it!

[horse_doc]

You can gripe all you want, but it has been TWO YEARS since the last attack. TWO YEARS.

Al Quaeda would hit us every damn day if they could. And they can't.

TWO YEARS. We are doing lots of things right, pal. Let me repeat - if they had their way, they would be killing Americans in America every day of the week.

TWO YEARS. Does that mean nothing to you? If so, you really don't have a friggin' clue who these people are, and what they want.

We are serious, and we are winning.

[american spirit]

Anybody can post a bookcover...why not answer the question as to why the fedgov seems not the least bit worried about our porous borders as they are the airports? BTW, educate yourself and study the background of the first WTC bombing and the complete failure of a certain agency to stop the whole affair.

[kitkat]

It's costing us 80B just to tidy up NYC, not to mention all the money spent on collateral losses to businesses in this country.

If we hadn't waged war on the terrorists, by now we could be spending billions on whatever other of our cities they would have attacked, and the infrastructure, electric grids, power plants, water plants, etc. etc.

Dubya has the guts to protect his people. Pray for his success.

[american spirit]

You still didn't answer the main question either.....if we have this grand plan for Homeland Security why are the borders still so porous allowing any number of terrorists, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, etc. to enter. Why not apply the same standards to the border as they do the airports....that's not happening, why?