Congressman Sam Graves (R, Missouri) shared in a letter to his constituents (February 2007) that it is somehow critically important to maintain the security of the United States by continuing this nation’s participation in what is a deteriorating debacle in Iraq, and that his highest priority is the safety of the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. It would be a relatively simple matter to refute, point-by-point, Congressman Graves’ logically-inferior presentation, but that isn’t my purpose in writing this response.

Instead, I would like to note that nearly every official discussion of the Iraq War fails to adequately explain why it was necessary for this nation to send thousands of it’s young people to their death or grievous injury. It is well-documented that the invasion and occupation of what was certainly a bad-acting but nonetheless sovereign nation was conducted based on lies and misleading actions of the top "leaders" in Washington. There was complicity in this by nearly everyone who had even the merest power to stop it and failed to exercise that control. Since we now know this to be fact, it would be nice to see an examination of why, in reality, this disaster was undertaken.

In his 2006 State of the Union speech, George W. Bush noted that this nation is addicted to oil. But within the current scenario, there will be no real efforts toward intervention in this addiction. Maintaining and abetting our oil jones for as long as possible is one of the primary functions of the current administration. As long as a commodity such as oil has a limited supply but a near-unlimited future demand, the oil industry (which, as we know, was the training ground for many in the administration) is able to sell in a favorable commercial environment, in which profits are limited only by - what - the possibility of embarrassment? The establishment and maintenance of a virtual empire in those areas of the globe which produce the drug of oil will be a necessity as long as we continue to live as if our lifestyle is "non-negotiable", in the words of Dick Cheney. Which means, when it comes down to it, we share some complicity in this.

The military forces of this country, which it appears may soon be involved in the attack of yet another sovereign oil-rich nation, are engrossed in an action which is worse than useless, and which every day is making this nation less (not more) secure. Current expenditures on these misadventures have run to greater than $365 billion. Estimates on the total cost at final accounting run to $2 trillion. I’ll re-emphasize here that the outcome of this make us less secure. Most of the treasure for this enterprise is debt, future money, to be earned by our sweat or that of children not yet working. The reckoning will not be attractive, but the people who have benefitted most from it won’t be around to be held accountable.

In the meantime, there are nearly 50 million people in this country without health care coverage, the specter of global warming looms ever larger, the destruction of agricultural and wildlands continues unabated, sober debate continues on why tax cuts for the wealthy are worthwhile, and our society is fed the "entertainment" of American Idol. How is it that we "support our troops" by sending them to death or dismemberment so that they might engage in an unwinnable action based on a fabrication? Thanks, Congressman Graves, but I think we should support our troops by getting them out of Iraq (and staying away from Iran). And we should enhance our national security by ensuring our people have access to decent health care, by seriously addressing global warming and the loss of biodiversity, by working harder on living within our economic and energy means, and by developing renewable energy now, before it’s too late.