Whose sacrifice?

Although President Bush and his top advisers have yet to admit it, continuing events in Iraq reveal fundamental miscalculations and multiple policy failures on the part of the administration. Those failures have left the White House looking out of control of the situation in post-war Iraq because--despite the post-war bravado of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the president's "bring 'em on" rhetoric--they are losing their grip. The president just calls for more "sacrifice"--instead of acknowledging miscalculations on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the reception of the Iraqi people to their American "liberators," the unexpected level of resistance to American occupation, the cost and scope of reconstruction, the American unilateralism that has made needed international help so difficult to obtain, and the abysmal lack of a post-conflict plan (to name just a few).

But who will do the sacrificing? President Bush has asked for $87 billion dollars more to pay for the American occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, after an initial $79 billion last spring. News reports reveal the comparative costs and "sacrifices" of this enormous expenditure: The entire proposed fiscal year budget for the Department of Health and Human Services is $66 billion; for the Department of Education, $53 billion. The total amount for all 50 states to meet their projected budget shortfalls this year is $78 billion. Meanwhile, the federal deficit is now projected to rise above $500 billion in fiscal year 2004.

Clearly, the sacrifices for the war in Iraq will be borne by those in most need--who will bear the brunt of inevitable spending cuts to vital social programs--and by future generations who will ultimately pay for the record-setting deficits. David Firestone, writing in The New York Times, put it well: "When President Bush informed the nation ... that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents."

Even before the shinning announcement of the costs of the war in Iraq, the news for the poor had been getting worse and worse. According to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, the number of people in poverty increased by 1.3 million from 2001 to 2002, and is now 34.8 million people in 7 million families, including 12.2 million children. A National Low Income Housing Coalition study found no state where a low-income worker can reasonably afford a 1-to-2 bedroom apartment, and 40 states where such housing would require an income of more than twice the minimum wage. Despite this, next year's budget could reduce the number of the low-income families who receive housing vouchers by more than 100,000 from current figures.

An Army announcement the day after the president's September speech made clear who else is being forced to sacrifice. Thousands of members of the National Guard and Reserves, who had expected their one year call-up to end this fall, will have their duty extended for up to another year. The on-going occupation of Iraq is changing everything for many American families.

And then there are the continuing casualties, both killed and wounded. As of this writing, the U.S. death toll stands at 305 men and women--166 since George W. Bush landed on an aircraft earner wearing a military flight suit to proclaim that the primary conflict was over and that "the United States and our allies have prevailed." Deadly attacks occur every day. British deaths stand at 50. And of course we don't hear much about Iraqi casualties.

TRUTH-TELLING ALSO was sacrificed in the president's 18-minute speech in September, where the words "terror," "terrorist," or "terrorism" were used 27 times. There was no mention of embarrassments such as the fact that no weapons of mass destruction--once the primary reason for the war--have been found. But there were several references to Sept. 11, linked in the president's words to the war in Iraq. The U.S. "victory" in Iraq has now become "rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization." The Bush administration continues its unsubstantiated insinuations of connections between Iraq and al Queda, without any proof from U.S. or any other intelligence sources. And the result is that a majority of the American people believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of Sept. 11--despite the lack of evidence. Ironically, the American occupation of Iraq may result ill a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy. By falsely claiming that Iraq harbored terrorists and then going to war, the U.S. has now created a new "breeding ground" and gathering point for all manner of militants in Iraq--united by a common American enemy.

Who will bear no sacrifices is also Clear--the beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts and the recipients of the lucrative contracts for Iraqi reconstruction, which are going to carefully selected American corporations. Those who will not sacrifice, in other words, are the wealthy and powerful allies of the Bush administration--and its core constituency. It is not hyperbole to say that those beneficiaries of wartime tax cuts and contract deals should now be called war profiteers.

The record deficits under this Republican White House and Congress are being caused by three factors: the dramatic economic downturn, the huge increases in military spending, and the enormous tax cuts that the Bush administration wants to make permanent. Steven Mufson, who covered economic policy for The Washington Post, called the $87 billion for the occupation of Iraq "chump change" compared to what has been given away in the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy--the occupation money comes to only 5 percent of the costs of the president's tax cuts over 10 years. If politics is the allocation of power, resources, and sacrifices, the politics of the sacrifices for the war on terrorism are becoming increasingly clear.

SO, I PROPOSE two sacrifices the Bush administration should make if they expect the rest of the nation to share in the sacrifices of rebuilding Iraq.

First, the White House should admit its miscalculations and policy failures. Those responsible for the failures should be the first to sacrifice. Therefore, the chief architects of the failed Iraqi policy--Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz--should both be asked to resign. These chief unilateralists have presided over the policy failures. If a better direction of international cooperation is to be restored in Iraq, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz must step aside. A leading member of Congress has already called for their resignations: religious leaders and others should take up that call.

Removing these hardliners would open the way for greater involvement in Iraq by the United Nations. It is clear that other countries will contribute peacekeeping troops and reconstruction aid only if there is genuine U.N. control of the political and military situation. Economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University claims that a U.N. reconstruction of Iraq would be far less costly, bring political stability much sooner, and allow Iraq's economy and oil industry to get up and running more quickly--he predicts a cost of only about $10 billion. That would leave many more resources to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa and for critical economic development in poor countries across the globe (a task that British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown repeatedly pleads is essential for defeating terrorism). Sachs writes, "The U.S. occupying army is therefore delaying rather than accelerating Iraq's reconstruction and recovery."

It's the commitment to U.S. political control and hegemony in the region that will make rebuilding Iraq so difficult and costly, says Sachs. "The United States will continue to destabilize Iraq as long as the occupation continues, and the American people will end up paying a high price for the fantasy of hegemony." Meantime, President Bush's much-touted commitment of $15 billion dollars to battle AIDS in Africa is yet to be fully funded.

Second, if the White House call for sacrifice is to have any moral credibility, the administration's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans must be rescinded immediately and the no-bid contracts to favored U.S. corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel must be suspended. Neither the poor nor our children (and their children) should be forced to pay for the war in Iraq while those with the greatest ability to sacrifice are reaping a whirlwind of benefit. That is morally unconscionable, and the only responsible course of action now is to repeal the egregious tax cuts and honestly seek international assistance in rebuilding Iraq.

Whether the resignations of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz or the repeal of the tax cuts and contracts are politically likely at this moment (they aren't) is not the point. There are fundamental issues of moral accountability here that go beyond political calculation. And those questions of accountability are especially vital during an election year.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.