Last week, this nation recognized the ignoble fifth anniversary of our engagement in Iraq. Earlier this week, the country was stung by news of the 4,000th U.S. combat-death in Iraq. Indeed, the toll of the war in terms of blood and capital has been devastating. 4,000 U.S. deaths palls in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have been killed, displaced or wounded in the conflict. According to the National Priorities Project, http://www.nationalpriorities.org/, the total cost of the war to-date trumps $505 billion. It's a staggering figure. Broken down, that sum delineates to:
$4,681 per household.
$1,721 per person
$341.4 million per day
Counterfactuals have recently become a flashpoint for liberals everywhere. Questions like "what if Bush weren't elected to a second-term?" and "What if he weren't elected at all?" loom large. If we were never involved in this protracted and senseless conflict, would we be thriving in a utopian land of milk-and-honey? What could we have done with the half trillion dollars we squandered? Better schools, newer roads, safer cities? The problem with counterfactuals is that they are open for disagreement; impossible to pin-down. But, as the economy sours and bank accounts everywhere crumble, it's tough to argue that the capital we have invested in Iraq wouldn't have been of more beneficial use domestically.
Through five years of conflict, the insurgency rages on. Iraqi infrastructure remains inadequate, its political structures are stained by corruption, ethnic tension and lethargy, and its people continue to suffer through an inept and whimsical occupation. If our fifth-year anniversary in Iraq were refined to mere symbols, it would be best depicted by a series of dollar signs and question marks. We still don't have a clear exit strategy, Iraq remains on the brink of an all-out civil war and the millions of dollars we spend in Iraq every day, far from helping reestablish broken infrastructure, seem to disappear into the untraceable desert sands.
The fifth may seem bad, but without decisive action, the sixth, seventh, and eighth will be even worse. Let's pray there won't be a tenth, fifteenth, twentieth.....
Showing posts with label Nick writes really serious stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick writes really serious stuff. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Is That a Rocket in Your Pocket?
The plane tickets are bought, the meeting rooms are booked, and as I write this, the big, silver platters are being hoisted on the tables and prepped for a feast. This weekend the UI will host a sprawling, three-day conference on China, the Olympics, and the global media. Complete with laminated name tags and flavored coffees, the conference will pull in a who's-who list of journalistic heavyweights. Journalists from the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and nearly every other Pulitzer-winning publication will trek to campus and flock to the Adler Journalism Building. And while they exchange small-talk, relate stories about past Olympics, and complete intellectually straining discourses on the role the media plays in hyping and framing the Olympics, a half world away, in Beijing, the Olympic torch is being paired with a ballistic missile.
The 2008 China Military Report, released earlier this week by the Chinese government, reveals a country sprinting towards militarization. The report shows that the Chinese government spent close to $140 billion modernizing its army last year. That figure is represents a staggering 300 percent increase from 2006, and is widely-believed to be grossly underestimated. The debate is over. China is emerging as a global economic and cultural colossus. But, so far, its military has remained relatively tame. Compared to the U.S. and many of its Western Allies, the Chinese military lacked cutting edge weapons systems, it's soldiers were often poorly equipped and underpaid, and a relatively small percentage of China's total GDP was devoted to its military. Now, the tides have turned. When faced with the choice between guns or rice, the officials in Beijing chose the barrel.
And what does this mean to the West?
China's government is a seemingly unsolvable paradox. It embraces Western-style capitalism as a means of enriching its masses and building its coffers yet remains very much a centrally-planned system. It endorses internal and international human-rights reforms yet subjugates large portions of its population to egregious human rights abuses. If it shows a smile, a frown is stirring underneath. Is the current military build-up a sign of belligerence or unprompted aggression? What do they have in mind? Is an all-out assault on Taiwan out of the question?
It seems clear that China is a country both proud of its past and confident about its role in the future. While it hopes to use the 2008 Olympics as a springboard to international glory, if back flips and breast strokes fail, tanks and bombers will succeed. The cold, hard truth is that military might matters. If China wants to fill its perceived place among the world's elite superpowers, it knows it needs an advanced military, fueled by a large pocket-book. While its exact aims are uncertain, its overarching goal is clear. China is mighty now, and will only grow mightier.
The 2008 China Military Report, released earlier this week by the Chinese government, reveals a country sprinting towards militarization. The report shows that the Chinese government spent close to $140 billion modernizing its army last year. That figure is represents a staggering 300 percent increase from 2006, and is widely-believed to be grossly underestimated. The debate is over. China is emerging as a global economic and cultural colossus. But, so far, its military has remained relatively tame. Compared to the U.S. and many of its Western Allies, the Chinese military lacked cutting edge weapons systems, it's soldiers were often poorly equipped and underpaid, and a relatively small percentage of China's total GDP was devoted to its military. Now, the tides have turned. When faced with the choice between guns or rice, the officials in Beijing chose the barrel.
And what does this mean to the West?
China's government is a seemingly unsolvable paradox. It embraces Western-style capitalism as a means of enriching its masses and building its coffers yet remains very much a centrally-planned system. It endorses internal and international human-rights reforms yet subjugates large portions of its population to egregious human rights abuses. If it shows a smile, a frown is stirring underneath. Is the current military build-up a sign of belligerence or unprompted aggression? What do they have in mind? Is an all-out assault on Taiwan out of the question?
It seems clear that China is a country both proud of its past and confident about its role in the future. While it hopes to use the 2008 Olympics as a springboard to international glory, if back flips and breast strokes fail, tanks and bombers will succeed. The cold, hard truth is that military might matters. If China wants to fill its perceived place among the world's elite superpowers, it knows it needs an advanced military, fueled by a large pocket-book. While its exact aims are uncertain, its overarching goal is clear. China is mighty now, and will only grow mightier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)