Summary-line: 6-Mar MATHRICH%UMCVMB.bitnet@DA #Article: Who pays for war? Message-Id: <9103070143.AA28580@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Sender: Activists Mailing List Subject: Article: Who pays for war? Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 18:53:22 CST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /** mideast.gulf: 100.0 **/ ** Topic: people of color pay for war in US ** ** Written 10:47 pm Mar 4, 1991 by ctwo in cdp:mideast.gulf ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Who Pays for War? By John Anner [This article was published in the spring issue of the Minority Trendsletter, a publication of the Center for Third World Organizing. The Spring issue also includes articles on people of color involved in anti-war organizing, comparisons of military vs. low-income spending, organizing to stop Arab- bashing, an interview with a prominant progressive Arab Middle East analyst and much more. All material is copyrighted, but may be used free of charge by non-profit groups as long as credit is given to CTWO and the author, and CTWO is sent a copy of how the material is used.] Subscriptions to the Minority Trendsletter are $20/year; issues deal with community, labor and solidarity organizing from the perspective of people of color. CTWO can be contacted at 3861 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland, CA 94609 (415) 654-9601. What will Operation Desert Storm Cost? And Who's Going to Pay? We've seen the rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air, and we've seen their inevitable result in the twisted and charred bodies pulled from the wreckage of Iraqi bomb shelters and homes. The human cost of Operation Desert Storm is all too apparent, and all too horrifying. But, terrible though they are, the military casualties are only part of the picture. We have yet to see anybody offer a real accounting of the costs of this war, and, in the long run, the domestic impacts may be as onerous as the deaths and injuries on the battlefields of the Middle East. Nobody who has given the matter any serious thought can believe, as does the White House, that war in the Persian Gulf will be "virtually painless" for Americans. Although other countries are picking up part of the tab, the truth is that the bill for the United States will eventually be enormous. After more than a decade of Reagonomics, it should come as no surprise that low-income communities of color are going to bear the heaviest burden. This burden will fall in a number of ways: 1. Directly, in that people of color are over-represented on the front lines of combat (see article on page ?). By some estimates, 60% of the front-line troops are African-American or Latino, and a majority are from low-income backgrounds. 2. Economically, as social programs are cut or go unfunded in order to pay for Operation Desert Storm and its aftermath. War also makes it likely that the current recession Q which is a virtual depression in most low- income communities Q will get worse rather than better. 3. Politically, because it is no secret that domestic concerns are going to be ignored as long as America is at war Q and most likely for long after. Civil, economic and social rights will be undermined as a result. 4. Socially, because it is a historical fact that war overseas goes hand in hand with intolerance and bigotry at home. Arab-Americans are already feeling the effects (see article on page ?). $300 Billion in "Indirect Costs" As economists and the White House have noted repeatedly, the war in the Persian Gulf is being fought mostly "out of inventory." In other words, the bombs and missiles that fall every hour on Iraqi cities and towns are coming mostly from the vast stockpiles in the U.S. and Europe built up over the past decade. The implication is that it doesn't cost us anything to use something that is already paid for, and that therefore we don't have to worry about the expense of destroying Iraq. In addition, the war effort is supposedly being financed by other countries. After our allies kick in their share, Administration officials assert that the total cost to the U.S. budget would be roughly $15 billion. In fact, these contributions do seem to be substantial, with about $51 billion pledged so far (although much less has actually been collected). But these numbers, according to a number of economists and analysts, conceal the true eventual cost of the war in several ways. First, they are almost certainly underestimates. The cost estimate has risen dramatically every month since troops were first sent to Saudi Arabia, and as in the Vietnam War it will probably continue to do so. The Pentagon initially estimated the cost at about $1 billion a month, adding up to a total of $15 billion by the end of a short war. In December, that estimate was boosted to between $17 and $35 billion through September 1991 by the Congressional Budget Office. In early February, the estimate was upped to $60 billion. The Pentagon is now guessing that the true cost might exceed $77 billion, and has stated that a ground war could cost over $2 billion per day. As a spokesman for the German foreign ministry said, when questioned about Germany's contribution, to the war effort, "clearly, the costs of this war are going to go through the roof." In terms of just the incremental, "on the ground" expenses, the longer the war lasts the higher the cost will go, and how long it will last at this point is anybody's guess. The Pentagon has not proven itself exceptionally adept up to this point at estimating how resilient the Iraqi military is, or how long it would last when faced with constant U.S. attacks. Most of the estimates are based on a war lasting no more than three months, when in fact it could go on for much longer. To fully understand the true cost of the war, however, it is necessary to factor in much more than the expenses involved in firing missiles that cost over a million dollars each. These added costs can be figured in a number of ways, as is done on page ?. The bottom line, however, says the experts, is that the cost of the war in 1991 alone could run as much more than the current Pentagon figure of $77 billion dollars. The incremental costs alone, i.e. the "on-the-ground" expenses of fighting the war, occupying Iraq and Kuwait, and demobilizing the troops, could reach as much as $100 billion dollars, according to several independent sources. A note of caution: all these numbers are little more than guesses. The real eventual cost depends on what happens to the U.S. economy. But, as the Nation noted a few months ago, after the Vietnam War an economist named Tom Riddell at Smith College calculated that the $141 billion in military expenses during that conflict mushroomed to $676 billion after the indirect costs were included. If Operation Desert Storm triggers a deep recession, coming at a time when the nation's banking and financial system is ailing and unemployment benefits and other social service programs are at their lowest funding point in decades, the fincancial and human costs of war in the Persian Gulf will be incalcuble. For White House chief of staff John Sununu to assure Americans not to worry about the price of war because the allies were going to foot the bill is an exercise in deception. He will not be affected, and most members of Congress will probably not be affected, because most of them are rich and few have relatives in the desert. But for average Americans, the young men and women coming back in body bags are only the beginning. The Suffering Doesn't Stop When Combat Ends As commentators are fond of pointing out, the war in the Persian Gulf is currently being fought using the huge stocks of weapons accumulated during the Reagan years. Reagan and Bush have presided over the largest peacetime military buildup in history, increasing the war budget by 46% (after inflation) in ten years. It is no secret where the funds to pay for these weapons came from Q deficit spending and cuts in social programs. The annual budget deficit is now over $300 billion. The rest of the money came from the pockets of the poor. As the chart on the next page demonstrates, military spending came largely at the expense of programs that benefit low- income Americans. Although some attempt has been made to point out just how expensive this war is going to be, so far nobody has pointed out the obvious. Low-income Americans (a category in which people of color are disproportionately represented) have already paid for those Patriots, Tomahawks, Warthogs and "smart bombs!" The potentially massive indirect cost of the war in the Persian Gulf raises the possibility that these same communities are going to be again victimized. In fact, if the current discussion over Veterans' benefits is any indication, communities of color are almost certainly going to be handed a disproportionate share of the costs of waging war in the Middle East. On February 5th, Congress passed a bill to expand education, job programs and other benefits to returning veterans by a vote of 402-0. Since most of these veterans will return home to low-income families or communities of color, on its face this is a progressive bill that could improve conditions for some of the communities hardest hit by war and military spending. But while the bill itself passed easily, it will be much harder to come up with the money to fund it. Under the new restrictions passed in last year's budget agreement, no new programs in a given category can be funded unless either the total funding for that category goes up, or other programs are cut. As the New York Times notes, "the law precludes, for example, cutting military spending and using the money to pay for domestic programs. Operation Desert Storm exists outside these categories because it is designated an "emergency funding requirement," but according to the White House veteran's benefits are a social program that do not fit the definition of emergency funding requirement. The bottom line, as director of the Office of Management and Budget Richard Darman explained to Congress, is that expanded veterans benefits would have to be funded out of cuts in other programs such as support for the elderly, the poor and children. In essence, last year's budget agreement pits veterans, low-income communities and other groups against each other in the fight for federal dollars. The Domestic Impact President Bush and the media management people at the Pentagon have assured the American people over and over again that "this is no Vietnam." Unfortunately for most people of color, the sense of deja vu is just too strong to be ignored. Charles Schultze, who was President Johnson's budget advisor during the Vietnam War, has written that Johnson found himself unable to fund both war and domestic programs. Eventually, "Vietnam won out." In Congressional testimony, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) put it bluntly: "If we get sufficient contributions from foreign nations, then our share could be internalized within the Defense Department budget. But, if we don't and the war is prolonged, then it starts to have a very definite impact and there simply would be very little money left over for social priorities." Rep. Leon Penetta (D-Calif.) added "something has got to suffer, and that's going to be the domestic agenda." As the Center for Economic Conversion puts it "every bomb that falls on Iraq also falls figuratively, but in a very real way, upon every city in the United States." But funding for education, job training, health care and housing is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how war in the Middle East will impact the domestic agenda. To the same degree that the nation's attention is on violent events half a world away, it is distracted from the urgent need to address social problems within the borders of the United States. To date, several hundred Americans have died in the Middle East. Last year, 23,000 were murdered in American cities. For young African-American men, the Middle East is a far safer place to be than most urban areas in the United States. It seems that nearly every indicator of the social health of this country is in crisis. Health care is in crisis Q the New York Times calls it a "medical disaster area for the poor" akin to conditions in Third World countries. Housing is in crisis Q the vast armies of the homelessness are a direct result. Education is in crisis Q last year 700,000 high students graduated without being able to read. Public safety is in crisis Q the United States has more people in prison than almost any other country in the world and is still one of the most dangerous places to live. Children are in crisis Q almost 25% are born into poverty. Take any one of these problems, multiply by two (or by four in many cases), and you have the effect on communities of color. The impact of Operation Desert Storm will be felt in the same way. All Americans will suffer, but because of lower incomes and opportunities communities of color will suffer far more than the mostly white suburbs. It's bad enough that the peace dividend fled to Saudi Arabia on August 2. Even worse, by adding to the federal deficit, war costs will put renewed pressure on the federal government to cut social programs. But more than money, these problems are in urgent need of political solutions that involve a fundamental restructuring of power and priorities in America. Operation Desert Storm, like the Vietnam War, will have as its inevitable result the delaying of much-needed attention to domestic social, economic and political reform. But it could also, again like Vietnam, inspire a new generation of progressive political action. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Guns and Butter: Can Both be Funded?," UPI upload on USENET by ClariNet Communications, 1/30/91. "War and the World Economy," San Francisco Chronicle, 1/19/91. "War and Hard Times," San Francisco Bay Guardian, 1/9/91. Marlin, John Tepper. "Costs of the Gulf War," unpublished draft manuscript. "The Costs of War," Nation, 12/24/90. "Fight Now, Pay Later," New York Times, 2/19/91. "Darman Cautions Congress on New Veteran's Benefits," New York Times, 2/20/91. "Bush to Ask Congress for $15 Billion to Cover Battle Costs," New York Times, 2/14/91. "Although Urban Blight Worsens, Most People Don't Feel Its Impact," New York Times, 1/28/91. "Health Problems of Inner City Poor Reach Crisis Point," New York Times, 12/24/90. "Suffering in the Cities Persists as U.S. Fights Other Battles," New York Times, 1/27/91. "Will We Be Able to Afford This War?," Boston Globe, 1/27/91. "War Could Cost $2 Billion a Day," San Francisco Examiner, 1/17/91. "Limits on Budget Makers," New York Times, 2/4/91. "Greenspan Wars of a Deep Recession if War Lasts," New York Times, 1/30/90. As Martin Luther King Jr. once remarked, he finally realized that "America would never invest the funds and energies in the rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonical destructive suction tube." ** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf **