By Brian Bohl

There is an idiom that says freedom isn’t free, but the cost is increasing exponentially as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. The United States accounted for nearly two-fifths of the world’s military spending in 2005, which was the last year for which full data is available. Those expenditures will only increase for 2007 and beyond, requiring record amounts of taxpayers’ money with little accountability.

President Bush’s administration put in a $502 billion request for the Pentagon and the nuclear weapons-related activities of the Department of Energy for the 2008 fiscal year. That is an increase over current figures, which already is more than the next 42 highest spending countries in the world, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

That discrepancy makes the Yankees payroll advantage in Major League Baseball look downright minimal. But those astronomical figures do not include a major component of military spending and the source of controversy: supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq.

For 2007 alone, the White House is asking for an additional $120 billion, which is not included in the original $500 billion price tag. As the war enters the fifth year, the Bush administration has already requested a surge in troops. This is a sign that Iraq is regressing instead of stabilizing, though Vice President Dick Cheney said Congress is being unreasonable when they insist on specifics when forking over the hard-earned money of U.S. taxpayers.

“The fact is that the United States military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill,” Cheney said last week. “We expect the House and the Senate to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached.”

So far, Congress has provided Mr. Bush with every single spending request authorized. The United States claims the most expensive military in world history, and that’s adjusting for inflation. Despite facing an enemy in Iraq with no air force, navy or organized army, victory is not imminent.

This is not indicative of the quality of the armed forces. It’s the reality of fighting insurgents, a lesson that was made painfully obvious in Vietnam. No matter how well-trained U.S. troops are, they cannot consistently win street fights against guerilla forces on foreign soil, and the politicians in Washington will continue to ask young men and women to sacrifice their lives with little hope for improving the sectarian violence that engulfs the region.

Cheney’s remarks display an arrogance that should not be tolerated by the American people. His remarks came after the Senate actually approved a supplemental $123 billion spending bill in Iraq. That’s right: the vice president’s statements came after Congress approved their request for a sum that is more than any other country’s full military budget. The House is working on a reconciliatory measure with the upper house before it goes to the president.

But Cheney still wasn’t satisfied. Why? Well, the Senate actually wanted assurances that the money would be used towards actually completing the war instead of simply delaying the inevitable. They asked the White House to accept their recommendation that the troops be withdrawn totally by March 31, 2008.

Since the Democratic Party took back control of the legislative branch in November, President Bush will be facing, for the first time, a Congress that is not willing to blindly acquiesce to his every demand. This type of check of power doesn’t sit well with White House officials, but after four years of no progress, it’s time to hold the administration accountable for the lack of results.

The very fact that more troops and resources are needed at this juncture of the conflict means the initial plan for victory was not accurate. The White House received just about every type of spending measure they requested since 2003, so why should the American people be told to fork over the money without asking any questions or demanding any results?

Previous wars, like Vietnam, show that wars are not won simply by throwing huge sums of money and resources at the problem. Already, the United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s military spending. The country’s 2005 total was $420.7 billion, while the next closest was China’s $62.5 billion. To put these figures in a context, the expenditures were more than the next 14 countries combined.

This is money that could be spent in better ways. The census bureau reported that 46.6 million people in the United Sates lacked health insurance in 2005. Think of the rising cost of tuition, and how much that money could be used for education. A cutback wouldn’t gut our military. If military spending was scaled back to around $300 million, it would still be more than the next six countries combined (China, Russia U.K., Japan, France and Germany), and would still serve as by far the most financed armed forces on the planet.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a 2008 presidential candidate, explained why spending more doesn’t necessarily mean greater support for the troops in an interview he gave in December.

“War spending generates a forward momentum-the more you spend, the more you are going to spend in the future,” he said. “And so regardless of what anyone in the Pentagon is saying, Congress has the obligation here to cut off funds, and that’s what I’m calling for. We have to stop this! We have to stop this war and we have to stop the potential expansion of the war and we have to stop this administration from getting another $130 billion to promote war anywhere [it] please[s].”