As I, and numerous economists, have so patiently pointed out, the war has very little to do with our long-term economic situation.

I can haul out the numbers yet again. It's the entitlements. Not the military spending, not the earmarks, not the pork. Entitlements.

Every three years the INCREASE in the amount we spend on these entitlements equals the annual cost of the war. The amount budgeted for 2009 is $217 billion MORE than the amount budgeted in 2006. The estimated entitlement costs for 2012 will be $253 billion more than the cost in 2009.

The average entitlement increase per year from 2006 to the estimate for 2012 is $78 billion. The average increase per year for the TOTAL Federal budget over the same period is about $98.5 billion. You can do the percentages and see where most of the money is going.

Compared to that, the war, and pretty much all of the discretionary budget, is lost in the noise. The war spending will go away eventually. The entitlements won't.

Just as a matter of perspective, defense spending (total defense spending, not just the war costs) in 2009 will be about 4.5 percent of GDP, and about 22 percent of the Federal budget (entitlements are 43 percent).

These numbers are lower than they were through the entire period from 1941 through the end of the Cold War (around 1990).

BTW, I don't know where people get the idea that Iraq's oil was the linchpin of the oil industry. We had a frigging boycott of their oil for years and the market didn't even notice it.