We Were Right About the Costs of War
Listen to Rep. Paul deliver this address.
This month, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki announced the addition of some 1,900 mental health nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers to its existing workforce of 20,590 mental health staff in attempt to get a handle on the epidemic of suicides among combat veterans. Unfortunately, when presidents misuse our military on an unprecedented scale — and Congress lets them get away with it — the resulting stress causes military suicides to increase dramatically, both among active-duty and retired service members. In fact, military deaths from suicide far outnumber combat deaths. According to an article in the Air Force Times this month, suicides among airmen are up 40% over last year.
Considering the multiple deployments service members are forced to endure as the war in Afghanistan stretches into its second decade, these figures are sadly unsurprising.
Ironically, the same VA Secretary Eric Shinseki was forced to retire from the Army by President Bush for daring to suggest that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would not be the cakewalk that neoconservatives promised. Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who is not a military veteran, claimed that Gen. Shinseki was “wildly off the mark” for suggesting that several hundred thousand soldiers would be required to secure post-invasion Iraq. Now we see who was right on the costs of war.
In addition to the hidden human costs of our seemingly endless wars are the economic costs. In 2008, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, with Linda Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. Stiglitz illustrated that taking into account the total costs of the war, including replacing military equipment and caring for thousands of wounded veterans for the rest of their lives, the Iraq war will cost us orders of magnitude greater than the $50 billion promised by the White House before the invasion. Add all the costs of Afghanistan into the mix, wrote Stiglitz, and the bill tops $7 trillion.
Is it any wonder why our infrastructure at home crumbles, health care is more expensive and harder to come by, and unemployment together with inflation continue their steady rise? Imagine the productive power of that $7 trillion in our private sector. What could it have done were it in private hands? What may have been discovered, what diseases might have been cured, what might have been built, how many productive jobs created?
With the bills coming due for our decade of reckless military action, the cuts rarely come from the well-connected military-industrial complex with its lobbyists and powerful political allies. In President Obama’s 2013 budget, troop strength is to be cut significantly while enormously expensive and largely superfluous weapons systems emerge essentially unscathed. As defense analyst Winslow Wheeler wrote this month, costs of the “next-generation” fighter, the F-35, will increase by another $289 million — this despite the fact that the fighter is badly designed and already outdated, a “virtual flying piano,” wrote Wheeler.
The military contractors building monstrosities like the F-35 are politically connected and thus protected. Unfortunately, returning military veterans are less so. In the same 2013 budget, the White House proposes to increase medical and pharmaceutical costs paid by veterans while reducing their cost-of-living increases. And how many years of increasingly alarming mental illness and suicide statistics has it taken for the modest increase in resources to be made available?
Those who predicted the real costs of our decade of global military conquest were ridiculed, scoffed at, and fired. History has now shown us that much of what they warned was correct. America is clearly less secure after a decade of unnecessary wars. It is more vulnerable and closer to economic collapse. Its military is nearly broken from years of abuse. Will we come back to our senses?
Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
- Obama’s Syria Policy Looks a Lot Like Bush’s Iraq Policy – June 16th, 2013
- Government Spying: Should We Be Shocked? – June 9th, 2013
- Iraq Collapse Shows Bankruptcy of Interventionism – June 2nd, 2013
- The Real Meaning of President Obama’s National Security Speeches – May 26th, 2013
- What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi – May 13th, 2013





JDonald
April 30th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
And Cheney, Wolfowitz, Frumm, Bush, Rumsfeld and many others are rolling around in six or seven digit income jobs while the rest of the country eats beans. Put them all on trial.
mick
April 30th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Forget the trial lets go straight to the necktie party.
Johnny in Wi.
April 30th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Amen to both you guys and put Obama and Rahm Emmanuel in the long list.
Cloak And Dagger
April 30th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
We should be electing this man as our president and burying the rest of the zio treasonous bastards! Wake the F**k up, America!
CassandraSpeaks
April 30th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Better yet, let's go to the polls and elect a third party libertarian-progressive alliance ticket.
Ben_C
April 30th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I hate to sound like an a-hole; however, I perceive things 'may' be spiraling out of control.
On balance: I think "we" (the American people as an aggregate) have "come to our senses" on many of these 'issues'–if informed 'sense' was ever gone to begin with. The "argument" has been decisively 'won' from my perspective; be that as it may, just because the "argument" has be 'won' and "popular opinion" reflects this, "popular opinion" on foreign policy matters doesn't seem to translate into actual policy.
Some, perhaps many, may not agree with this conclusion (and this may not have been true in the past where a different dynamic was at work); be that as it may, let's consider the facts: the war in Libya wasn't popular, ever… Depending on how the issue is framed: the impending war in Iran isn't popular…and even when the "Iran" 'issue' is grossly misrepresented, a war with Iran doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly "popular", if at all for that matter, from the information I have (which may be inaccurate or outdated). The "war" in Afghanistan' is overwhelmingly 'unpopular' (although, I would say, this 'war', for all intents and purposes, "may" already be 'over' in reality).
Accurate information and "facts" are obviously essential. That being said: factual information, and an "informed public", doesn't inherently translate into 'solutions'. Just because I may "know" I'm getting screwed, it doesn't automatically mean I, as an individual, know what to do about it in order to change the dynamic.
Getting the "right" people into 'power' at the same time, if this could actually happen, if they are not already (which is a separate topic..) would only be a short term 'fix' anyway–as it would be dependent on the whim electorate–which may vote such "right" people into office for reasons completely unrelated to "foreign policy" in the first place.
The "wars" today don't seem to benefit anyone with the exception of an extremely limited few. A lot of, if not most, people seem to already know and recognize this.
So what now?
Maybe one approach, which would be different than the status-quo, would be to educate people about how the "system" really works and what tactics and activities are are actually effective. Obviously the "neocons" have figured this (the 'system') out…if not mastered it… Are the "neocons" simply smarter and superior human beings than "non-interventionists" (or anyone else for that matter)? I think not. Maybe it's just that the "neocons" have simply figured out the "game". Is there any reason the "neocons" can't be beat at the 'game' they've obviously figured out and mastered? I don't think so…although, some may disagree. What I'm sure of is that: the "neocons" can't be beat if no one figures out, and plays, the 'game' they're already playing and have mastered–I'm certain of this… You can't 'win' if you don't "play" and/or don't know the "rules"…that's a no-brainier.
Do "neocons" rely primarily on "popular opinion" for their influence and power, or does this come from other places? Objectively speaking: are "neocons" more "wealthy" than the aggregate of the US population; or are they simply more organized and connected (which Dr. Paul may have mentioned)?
I don't have all the "answers"…I'm just throwing out some questions because things don't seem to "add up" to me…. If the "neocons" could be beat at their own game, and popular opinion were against them as well (which it already seems to be), I simply don't see how they could continue to "win"…
Bréchon
May 1st, 2012 at 1:58 am
And what are doing american citizens, they are submit and without réactions, trapped by their inept
patriotism maintaining excess.
Trader
May 1st, 2012 at 5:51 am
No, peace and justice will be served by turning them over to the Taliban.
Dahoit
May 1st, 2012 at 5:55 am
Remember that all this nonsense is all about freakin Israel,its security and expansion,we fall,they rise and we pay the price.Bottom line, people! And the MSM and every factor of our government is under their control,the people who can't play well with others.
ANU News.net Ron Paul — We Were Right About the Costs of War
May 1st, 2012 at 11:18 am
[...] This month, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki announced the addition of some 1,900 mental health nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers to its existing workforce of 20,590 mental health staff in attempt to get a handle on the epidemic of suicides among combat veterans. Unfortunately, when presidents misuse our military on an unprecedented scale — and Congress lets them get away with it — the resulting stress causes military suicides to increase dramatically, both among active-duty and retired service members. In fact, military deaths from suicide far outnumber combat deaths. http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2012/04/30/we-were-right-about-the-costs-of-war/ [...]
Don
May 1st, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Dr Paul, running as third party candidate, will pull a lot of antiwar Democrats and many conservative Republicans, but he won't win.
The good news is that, in so doing, he may destroy the Republican party.
MoT
May 1st, 2012 at 3:02 pm
As usual. The only man who makes sense is the one who has been called "crazy" for months on end. If he's crazy then I'm certifiable.