What’s more repugnant than the war in Iraq?

As a former Marine combat and staff officer with service during Desert Storm, it’s not difficult to understand the arguments for and against remaining in Iraq.

Most progressives who are against the war argue there’s no assurance that continued occupation will end the civil war in Iraq, so “bring them home now”. Bush supporters argue, “we broke it, we fix it, cutting and running is defeatist and fight them there, so they don’t come here.”

The emotional heart of the current Iraq military spending bill is it’s unpatriotic not to support it, because it funds the troops. Those opposed to occupation claim their allegiance is to respect and preserve both civilian and military lives.

What is repugnant is the cavalier bravado at the expense of destroying military personnel and their families’ lives, while a large portion of military spending is not for their pay. Most of us are now aware of the unacceptable care many returning OIF veterans receive.

The Clinton administration is hailed as creating a budget surplus while Bush squandered it into a bloody red deficit. The dirty little secret neither Democrats nor Republican politicians are addressing is much of our nation’s budget surplus can be linked to a dramatic troop reduction of over 500,000 since Bush I was in office. Troop related costs are large, but are insignificant compared to the accompanying expenditures on ships, planes, tanks and multi-million dollar contracts for resupply, R&D and maintenance. When troop levels are cut, so is the need for the equipment they use.

Instead, we have military service contract fine print permitting us to send, resend and resend yet again the same troops to Iraq. It’s cheaper than expanding the military force-in-readiness. Yet, 100,000 paramilitary contractors in Iraq are paid two to four times more than our troops with our tax dollars. Meanwhile, terrorism exists beyond Iraq’s borders. Iran rattles its nuclear sword and North Korea fires a nuclear capable rocket across the bow of Japan. They know something we refuse to acknowledge. Short of deploying nuclear weapons, only ground troops are a deterrent and a military draft is off the table.

Eisenhower warned that when the political establishment acted at the behest of powerful military contractors, then there would be societal consequences. Just who is really supporting the troops?