As the Fiztgerald probe continues and indictments begin being handed out at the White House, there has been much talk about whether or not the White House lied to us in laying out their case for war. Most of the conversation has been focused on the reasons for war (i.e. yellow cake, mushrooms clouds, etc.) What has been somewhat ignored lately, even as we've passed the 2000 casualty mark is the White House's failure to be held accountable on the cost side of the Iraq War cost/benefit analysis.
Maybe it wasn't lies, maybe it was just plain incompetence, but this administration never prepared the American People for the costs of war. The benefit side of the argument has become muddled (what is it we went to war for again?) But the cost side was always pretty clear. This war was supposed to be a cakewalk.
As we passed to 2000 casualty mark, I started thinking back to a program that I had heard on NPR one day while walking to school. The program ran on March 19, 2003 - the day that Bush announced the start of the war. The introduction to the program consists of a "man on the street" asking Americans what number of casualties they would consider significant.
I found the responses rather astounding. They are even more astounding today.
First they play the responses of what could be considered your stereotypical "rightie" and "leftie." The stereotypical leftie says that one would not only be significant but would be "too much." The stereotypical rightie echos that even one would be significant but sometimes you have to play the price for freedom. It is the next three responses that are the most interesting. The next three make up what I would consider to be the pragmatic, apolitical center. This group consists of most Americans (and I actually believe most people here at Kos). This pragmatic center doesn't reflexively back or denigrate war. They first attempt to do a cost/benefit analysis. Democracies teeter if either side of that balance is brought on by lies in incompetency.
When asked, shortly before the start of the Iraq war, how many casualties would be significant, here were a few of the responses:
(paraphrasing - please listen to the show for the exact quotes)
Responder #3 - Shouldn't be over 25 unless there is some sort of accident
Responder #4 - If there are over 100, then something went wrong
Responder #5 - Judging by recent wars there should be less than 500
Less than two years later over 2000 soldiers have been killed. Please listen to the entire clip:
http://www.npr.org/...
We can and should continue to argue about whether or not America was lied to about the benefits of the war. No one can argue, however, that Americans were not prepared for the war's costs.