|
More
spending per solider doesn't cover the cost
The
United States is spending more per soldier
than ever before. According to the Associated
Press, the war in Iraq costs roughly $4.3
billion a month while the Afghanistan conflict
costs about $800 million. The expense is
similar to that incurred by the Vietnam
War (adjusted for inflation), although current
figures are for 170,000 troops and Vietnam
figures are for about half a million.
In
light of these figures, many are clamoring
for ways to cut costs — just months
after inadequate armor for the troops took
center stage as one of the key presidential
election issues in 2004.
A
majority of those who advocate leaving the
Middle East immediately claim to be against
the war, but for the soldier. Certainly,
those who are in favor of the war are also
for the soldiers.
If
such a vast majority of Americans support
the necessary spending to arm, protect and
sustain our soldiers, the costs, no matter
how astronomical, should not be such an
issue.
Human
lives cannot be assigned a monetary value.
We cannot, and should not, attempt to place
a price on our soldiers' heads.
It
seems clear that President George W. Bush's
administration will not end the United States
presence in Iraq until the new Iraqi regime
is fully capable of supporting and protecting
itself.
Every
second our soldiers spend there is a second
they put their lives in danger to serve
our country.
They
deserve the best technology available, including
technology capable of performing dangerous
missions that otherwise would have likely
been suicide missions. They deserve the
best armor available to protect them against
those who wish to take their lives. They
deserve the best weaponry available so they
can accomplish their objectives and end
the United States presence there sooner.
They deserve all the food and common household
items necessary to sustain them while they
are there, to keep them healthy and able
to perform their duties.
And
they undeniably deserve good pay for putting
their lives on the line and being half a
world away from those they love.
For
which of these things could we possibly
justify a cut, for the mere greedy sake
of saving money? For example, a cut in education
to make up for defense spending might cause
a student with a 15-year-old textbook to
miss out on some recent discoveries, which
a good teacher would relate without the
aid of the book. But a soldier who approaches
an adversary unarmed or in an improperly
armored vehicle as a result of a cut in
defense spending will undoubtedly return
home in a coffin, something which could
have been avoided, had we been willing to
spend the money necessary to prevent it.
Such
costs simply cannot be compared. As long
as there is a U.S. presence overseas, we
need to keep the troops healthy and well-protected.
No amount of money can ever equal the cost
of a human life.
Chenin
Simi is a first year public relations and
Spanish major at CSULB.
|
