On Monday, US President George W. Bush submitted the government budget report for fiscal year 2008 to Congress, which starts on October 1, 2007. In this 2.9-trillion-dollar budget, Bush has requested 481.4 billion dollars for defense, which does not include the 235.1 billion dollars to be spent on the Afghan and Iraqi wars this year and next. The administration allocated an additional 70 billion to the war fund in the 2007 fiscal year. Since September 11 the US has spent more than 420 billion dollars on the two wars, and that figure will hit 660 billion by 2008. Making his request for funds, Bush stressed that this is a budget for "protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism".

War and conflict inevitably lead to greater national defense spending. US military spending was 416 billion dollars in 1953, the peak of the Korean War, 420 billion dollars in 1968 at the peak of the Vietnam War; and 399 billion dollars in 1989, just as the Cold War drew to a close (figures based on 2000 US dollar values). The administration's huge defense spending, including that on Iraq, is doubtlessly setting another historical record.

The president also wants to reduce the fiscal deficit and strike a favorable balance by 2012. The only area where there was room for the axe to fall was non-military funds, and 141 government projects have been cancelled or significantly cut, many related to the national economy and people's livelihood. However, the question is, will the American public agree to keep making sacrifices for the war? For nearly a year, the justness and necessity of the Iraqi war has been increasingly questioned, with anti-war sentiment becoming mainstream public opinion. This is reflected in the fact that the largely anti-war Democrats regained control over Congress in the mid-term elections.

The new face of Congress means it is unlikely that the new budget will be passed easily. For the past week the Senate has been debating a non-binding motion to stop more troops being sent to Iraq, which was proposed by critics of the war in both political parties. The issue is unresolved as the motion failed to get the necessary 60 people to second it. However, this is the first Congress challenge in the last five years to the Bush administration's war policy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the budget "takes our country in the wrong direction" and that "Democrats will not give the president a blank check on Iraq". Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that the budget would be scrutinized by Congress given the appalling waste of US funds in Iraq

Growing pressure to withdraw from Iraq has forced the president to be more ambiguous in his budget strategy. While the budget suggests spending on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would drop to 50 billion dollars by fiscal year 2009, Bush denies this represents a deadline for withdrawal. This seemingly contradicting information suggests that even the president himself has no clear idea how long the war will last. Just as he admitted with Iraq, there is no miraculous solution for the issue and every remedy has counter-effects and potential risks.

The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, and sacrificed the lives of more than 3,000 military personnel, only to see the situation go from bad to worse. It is perhaps the administration's belief that it can extricate itself from the mess there as soon as possible by increasing funds for "fresh blood". However, history has shown us that a war is not always won by party with more troops and money. A change to the Iraqi situation depends largely on the Iraqi people �C an external force can only be supportive. The earlier the Bush administration realizes this, the less waste there will be.

By Li Xuejiang of People's Daily; translated by People's Daily Online.