Who Will Pay For These Wars?
Tod Landis
July 4, 2003
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the framers of the Constitution gave the
legislative branch, not the
executive branch, the war powers listed in Article 1 so that those "who
are to pay" for war would be the ones to decide whether to
make war, not "those who are to spend".
Unfortunately, with the exception of Barbara Lee, our representatives
in Congress have forgotten this fundamental principle. The
resolution they passed on September 14th, 2001, HJ Res 64, authorizing
the President to use all necessary force against any country he
determines harbors terrorists, is still in force.
Effectively, President Bush has a blank check to wage war
against some 41 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Korea,
Britain, France, and Canada.
This resolution also makes it legal for him to conduct covert
operations in those countries and to establish the death camp at
Guantanamo Bay.
Take a moment to think about the Americans who pay, those who
spend, and those who benefit from war.
The people who pay are the men and women who fight the wars.
American taxpayers pay, some $80 billion for the most
recent wars, and counting. Americans also pay, when schools,
hospitals, and other services are cut to fund the military. Few
of these people would decide to wage war, to kill thousands, unless it
were really necessary for the
protection of the United States.
The people doing the spending are the decision makers in the American
military and intelligence bureaucracies. People like Perle,
Wolfowitz and Cheney. Because Congress is not doing its job,
their power is largely unchecked. I believe these people are
prepared to wage war for purposes other than our protection, such
as advancing the interests of oil companies and the war profiteers.
Congress now needs to reassert its Constitutional authority and insist
that the executive branch make its case, before we kill more people or
destroy more countries. And Congress should be skeptical, because we
have evidence that this executive branch lies.
The first step is to repeal Public Law 107-40, the "Authorization
for Use of Military Force", which Congress passed and President Bush
signed into law in September, 2001.
The Countries
President Bush is already authorized to use "all necessary force"
against any of the 41 Countries listed below, and any other country
where Al Qaeda agents are spotted. This authorization is subject only
to his determination that
the agents are being "harbored"
Here is the list: Afghanistan, Canada, Germany, Malaysia,
Great Britain, France, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, the Netherlands,
Belgium, Italy, Spain, Germany, Bosnia, Croatia and the Balkans,
Albania, Austria, Turkey, Albania, Russia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Lebanon, Sudan, Pakistan, Israel, Uruguay, Paraquay, Ecuador,
Uzbekistan, China, Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia, India,
Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. Source: Inside Al
Qaeda by Rohan Gunaratna, Columbia University Press
Note that Iraq is not on this list, which is why a separate resolution
authorizing war against Iraq was neccessary. See http://todlandis.com/blog/iraq.html
for more on that.
Related links and articles
text of the House resolution
Text of H. J. Res.64
from newspaper article "Rumsfeld Estimates US Monthly Costs in Iraq at
$3.9 Billion"
NY Times, July 9, 2003:
In addition to the cost figure for Iraq, which Mr.
Rumsfeld provided after repeated, pointed requests from members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, the defense secretary said that
operations in Afghanistan were costing $900 million to $950 million a
month
from newspaper article "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue",
Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002:
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein could open a bonanza
for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals
between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries,
and reshuffling
world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of
the Iraqi opposition.
from United for a Fair Economy:
http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2003/MoreBucksForBang_pr.html
The study also looked at the size of
campaign contributions by the largest defense contractors and found
a strong correlation between campaign contributions made by
a company in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles and the value
of defense contracts awarded to that company. Ninety percent
of the difference in contract size can be accounted for by size of
contributions. For example, top arms contractor Lockheed
Martin was also the top campaign contributor among defense
firms.
|
Home
|
|
|
|