War in Iraq is a boost for big government
Published March 20, 2003
War is unpredictable, and there is no reason to think the invasion of Iraq
will be an exception. Only one thing about war is certain: It enhances the
size, power, reach and prestige of the federal government.
Conservatives say they want to curb the role of government in our lives and
reduce its claim on our earnings. But this time, as so often before, they
have been the most enthusiastic supporters of a policy that will unerringly
subvert those goals.
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush explained the key difference
between himself and Al Gore: "He trusts the government. I trust you." If
Gore were to become president, declared Bush, "the era of big government
being over is over."
But even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, big government was getting
a new lease on life. Since then, things have gotten worse. Bush has created
a federal department the size of Salt Lake City to assure "homeland
security," proposed to increase the Pentagon budget by more than $100
billion just in his first term, declared his intent to bring democracy and
liberty to the entire Middle East, and appointed himself imperial viceroy
of Iraq.
"The federal government will spend over $21,000 per household in 2003--a
level exceeded only during World War I," notes Brian Riedl, a budget expert
at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Could President Gore have done worse?
That's before we get the tab for invading Iraq, which could exceed $100
billion--more than the annual budget for the departments of Energy,
Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Justice combined.
Worse still, the actual expense for bombs, bullets and fuel is the least of
the cost of Bush's plan for Iraq. For years to come, American taxpayers
will also be on the hook for running and rebuilding a country devastated by
economic sanctions and war.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki has said the occupation of Iraq
could require "several hundred thousand soldiers." The Congressional Budget
Office estimates it could cost up to $45 billion a year, and could take
several years. It's not far-fetched to imagine the United States burning
through half a trillion dollars over the next decade.
Once the war is over, reports The Wall Street Journal, "the administration
plans to begin everything from repairing Iraqi roads, schools and hospitals
to revamping its financial rules and government payroll system. Agencies
such as the U.S. Treasury Department would be deeply involved in
overhauling the country's central bank, and some U.S. government officials
would serve as `shadow ministers' to oversee Baghdad's bureaucracies."
We'll also have to refurbish airports, harbors and power plants, bring the
health care system into the modern era, and restore the oil industry to
full strength.
Americans don't much like to pay the cost of governing this country. Now
we'll get to pay for governing another one as well.
How long will the American military be in Iraq? We occupied Germany after
World War II, and we still have troops there. The assumption is we'll get
out quicker this time. But we had the same intention then.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the first supreme commander of NATO, said in 1951,
"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national
defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this
whole project will have failed." Governments acquire responsibilities more
eagerly than they shed them.
Paying for all this will fall on the heavy-laden American taxpayer. The
late journalist Randolph Bourne, reflecting on the experience of World War
I, wrote that "war is the health of the state." He knew that nothing is so
sure to fatten the federal leviathan.
Under Ronald Reagan, who was no fan of government, the federal budget grew
by 23 percent, in inflation-adjusted terms, in just eight years. Why? Not
because he was lavishing money on welfare and other social programs, but
because, to meet the Soviet threat, he boosted defense spending by 42
percent above inflation.
The redeeming feature of Reagan's effort was that once the Cold War had
been won, the American military shrank, and so did its budget. But the war
in Iraq looks like a down payment on an endless obligation. And Bush's
policy of pre-emption suggests that once we've liberated Baghdad, we may
target Tehran and Pyongyang.
Republicans, you can be sure, will back President Bush in any military
adventure, whatever the cost. The era of big government being over is over.
And this time, conservatives can't blame it on liberals.
----------
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.majority.com/ct/ct1.html
