Candidates talk about their plans for Iraq, but not about how they would pay for war

Candidates talk about their plans for Iraq, but not about how they would pay for war

While President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain continue to give voice to the need for various commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, we are compelled to ask that any one of them answer the question: “How are we going to do that?”

The “we” in that question is the United States and its people. The “that” is provide the troops and pay for the materiel necessary to continued military activity in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

We have been asking this question of the Bush administration for years. And while we haven’t received a personal response, the answer has been clear. The administration has decided to borrow whatever it deems necessary to stay the course and will avoid at all costs even entertaining the suggestion that a nation at war must tax its citizens to pay for the war.

As far as military manpower goes, the administration’s answer has been to deploy units for longer periods and to shorten rest time between deployments for regular service and reserve troops. Those troops, their armament and their modes of transportation are getting worn out.

Historians will marvel at the growth of the national debt that was seen during the eight-year administration of a president who ran as a fiscal conservative and whose own party had control of the Congress for most of his two terms.

The national debt when George W. Bush took office was $5.7 trillion. Today it is more than $9.5 trillion and growing at the rate of $1.7 billion per day, more than $50 billion a month. At that rate, it will be pushing the nation’s $9.8 trillion debt limit just about the time President Bush leaves office in January. Certainly only a fraction of the debt increase can be directly attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is a sizeable fraction. And the long term costs of providing for veterans of the war, including those who have been severely injured, will stretch out for decades and reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Their positions

Barack Obama ran for the Democratic Party nomination on a campaign that emphasized his long-time opposition to the war and implied as speedy a withdrawal of troops from Iraq as would be possible. It appears he will be returning from his visits to Afghanistan and Iraq with at least a more nuanced view of Iraq and the possibilities for a quick pullout.

Afghanistan he sees as the central front in the war on terrorism. He would deploy at least 10,000 more U.S. combat troops there.

John McCain ran for the Republican nomination as a firm supporter of President Bush’s policies, including the troop surge in Iraq. His position is that U.S. troops won’t be withdrawn until al-Qaida in Iraq is defeated and Iraq’s government and security forces are able to safeguard the people.

In the coming months, each of the presumptive nominees of their parties will continue to accentuate that his policy is the one that best protects the United States and offers a chance for peace in his time.

Unfortunately, we doubt that either will have the courage to tell the American people what his plan will cost or how he will build and support a military force that can fight those wars.

We remember too well, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s prediction of how long it would take to win the war in Iraq: “It could last six days or six weeks, I doubt six months.” Or Rumsfeld’s prediction of its cost: $50 billion. Multiply those numbers by 10 and the time and cost still fall short.

Voters deserve more candor than that from Obama and McCain. But unless the voters demand it, it won’t come in six days or six weeks. Maybe in six months, after the election is over.