Staff Writer

DeKALB | Iraq war costs amount to $720 million per day, according to an American aid organization.

American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker peace and humanitarian aid association, made the calculations using the research of Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes.

The committee has taken its demonstration, which consists of 10 large banners listing alternative ways of spending the money, on the road to Chicago and Sioux City, Iowa. They plan to visit various campuses around Illinois as well.

“People have a feeling this war is costing them a lot of money, but I don’t think they knew it was this costly,” said Michael McConnell, regional director of the American Friends Service Committee. “If we apply it to actual needs, people can begin to understand it better.”

According to the research, just one day of money spent on the war could pay for 34,904 four-year college scholarships, one year of health care for 423,529 children, the construction of 83 new elementary schools, or the hiring of 14,678 elementary school teachers.

“This war is costing us about half a million a minute and now Bush wants $190 billion more,” McConnell said. “But this only covers about 40 percent of the total cost of the war. It doesn’t take into account things like long-term health care for wounded veterans, replacement of weapons and increases in defense spending.”

Christopher M. Jones, chairman and associate professor of the political science department, questions the validity of what the service committee has done.

“The American Friends Service Committee daily war cost estimate is inflated relative to most figures circulating within the mainstream U.S. national security community, because the group is counting more than immediate costs,” Jones said. “The group’s analysis includes a fairly liberal interpretation of long-term costs, such as replacing weapons, caring for Iraq war veterans and interest on war debt.”

Jones compared this war to the Cold War era.

“The committee’s strategy brings attention and discussion to the issue, which is always desirable in a democracy,” Jones said. “The same thing was done during the Cold War when various groups would highlight what the United States was spending on nuclear weapons and how the money could be allocated differently.”

Jones said the committee’s analysis could be misleading Americans, letting them believe the end of the war will end tie-up of federal funds.

“The average American could be misled by the committee’s analysis, thinking that ending the war will free up federal funds for domestic programs. That’s not going to happen.”