President George W. Bush was elected twice, promising to run the federal government like a business. Despite the fiscal crisis in Washington, there's no better time for the president to keep his promise than now.

As businesspeople, we know that CEOs are constantly balancing the twin needs of making money in the short term and investing in the future, so that profits don't disappear a few years down the line. Similarly, President Bush has to find money to pay for the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina in the short term -- while also investing in programs, like education, that are essential to our nation's long-term security.

Of course, the president could retract some of his tax cuts or withdraw troops from Iraq -- moves that could generate hundreds of billions of dollars. But assuming he won't, what to do?

Well, when the going gets rough in the free market, businesspeople call up their accountants and scrutinize the company budget. As our CEO-in-chief, President Bush needs to make an honest assessment of our national checkbook.

Such an analysis would reveal that the Pentagon budget, more than the ledger of any other single federal department, could yield big-time savings if subjected to the cost-cutting methodology of a business executive intent on ferreting out waste.

That view is held by former President Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence J. Korb, who argues that America could save $60 billion by cutting weapons still being built or maintained, believe it or not, to fight the defunct Soviet Union.

These cuts, Korb points out, would not affect our nation's ability to fight terrorists or the Iraq war. (The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are funded by "supplemental" appropriations by Congress, not by the Pentagon's annual budget.)

It's true that even a whopping number like $60 billion will not cure America's fiscal woes, but it certainly is a big chunk of money.

A business-minded President, along with Congress, would decide how to spend the $60 billion with a cost-benefit analysis. Which of America's fiscal needs require immediate investments and which can be deferred?

From a business perspective, we can no longer defer spending required to prepare us for the defining wars of the new century, and these wars will be fought on economic battlefields.

So the top priority for our leaders now is to ensure that America has the arsenal it needs to win future economic battles. For $60 billion in wasted Pentagon funding, America could:
Retrain hundreds of thousands of workers. America's workers, the foot soldiers in economic battles, need training as the economy shifts.
Renovate our public schools and provide health insurance for our children. America's future recruits, our children, must be equipped with the skills they need to trump their adversaries in the global economy. We should begin upgrading America's crumbling public schools and provide health insurance to every kid who lacks it in our country, the world's richest.
Take steps toward energy independence. The nation with the most energy-efficient economy will possess the most devastating weapon in future global economic wars.
Help poor nations. To promote democracy and basic decency, we should double the federal budget for humanitarian foreign aid, saving the lives of millions kids who would die of hunger in impoverished nations.

In this era of budget scarcity, President Bush and Congress must undertake a hard-nosed and bipartisan analysis of the widely acknowledged waste in the Pentagon budget. This is the only way we can 1) strengthen our strategic security by reducing our dependence on oil and rebuilding our stature overseas; and 2) ensure our economic competitiveness and security by investing in the jobs of tomorrow and the kids of today who will hold them.

It's time for our CEO to be a strategic leader and to be accountable for our future.

America has two options to disarm and contain Iraq. One option--war--involves killing people. The other option--more and tougher inspections--does not.

Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war if high numbers of casualties result, haven't heard enough about the deaths that are sure to be caused by the war option. That's why I created a television advertisement, featuring hip-hop artist Russell Simmons, that includes video footage of actual war--of wounded civilians and of American soldiers dragging the bodies of their comrades out of harm's way.

I think most of you would want to see my advertisement and decide for yourself whether you agree with an aging ice cream guy or think I am crazy, misinformed, stoned, stupid, or much worse.

Unfortunately, most of you will never see my anti-war commercial. Why? Because the major network news outlets refused to accept it, claiming that the imagery was too graphic. Trouble is, the imagery in my ad was far less graphic than what you see on prime time entertainment shows, like "ER" or even on mayhem-crazed local TV news shows.

So what's the real reason that the TV networks rejected my ad?

Ironically, linking death to war seems to be taboo at a time when the connection should be on the top of our minds. Few in the major media are talking about casualties in the Iraq war, and it seems our nation does not want to confront the reality that the war will result in casualties, anywhere from a few thousand dead and wounded (itself a horrific number) to tens of thousands, according to international experts. Let's be clear--that's thousands of dead or wounded people, at a minimum.

Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is doing little or nothing to break us out of our bloodless trance about the war. It has not released official information about expected causalities, although surely this information has been developed by the White House. Congress isn't demanding this information.

In the real world, outside of Washington DC, citizens seem to be expecting war without death, partly because the topic isn't on TV and partly because recent wars have been presented to us as death-free--which they were not, of course.

Thousands of innocent Iraqis died in the last war--not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died in the war's aftermath due to its impact on water, electricity, medical care, and more.

Even wars like the one in Afghanistan, which had fewer civilian deaths, cause soldiers to die. And soldiers, it needs to be said, are people too, often innocently caught in political turmoil outside their control, whose lives have value. Their deaths leave families and friends grieving forever.

So, it's an inexcusable omission for the Bush Administration to sell the Iraq war to us and the international community without acknowledging its human toll, not only on our soldiers but on the Iraqis.

It's really an outrageous situation, which we have come to accept as normal fare in the war business. But it actually represents deceptive spin at its ugliest. Talking about war without addressing casualties is like discussing the benefits of nuclear power and ignoring nuclear waste. The two go hand-in-hand.

To break through the denial, my ad depicted dead and wounded people, both soldiers and civilians. And that's precisely why the networks should air it. More debate about the war's potential casualties would help our nation make an informed decision about Iraq.

But network TV executives don't think you should see our commercial.

We hope they will reconsider their decision. Until they do, you can see our ad at Win Without War.

And, even if you don't want to see our anti-war commercial, ask the President and your representatives in Congress to spell out all the potential consequences of the Iraq war--before America invades.

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry's, is president of TrueMajority.org, which enables citizens to fax their members of Congress about critical issues like the Iraq war. His views do not reflect those of Ben and Jerry's Homemade, Inc.

A couple weeks before 9/11, you may have seen this job posting in the newspaper:

ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and video (threatening okay) to Enemy Search Committee, C/O Ben Cohen, Burlington, VT, 05401.

At the time, our politicians couldn�t find a credible enemy to justify spending billions on new submarines and jets that would be perfect for fighting the collapsed Soviet Union, but would be otherwise useless.

Where was the enemy requiring the Pentagon to upgrade its fleet of stealth aircraft -- already the world�s best by far?

Tough-looking trading partners like China didn�t make the enemy cut. North Korea was even going diplomatic. Defense contractors were worried.

Meanwhile, children's advocates were saying that rather than waste money on impressive but useless Pentagon toys, we should modernize our crumbling public schools, vaccinate kids in poor nations, fight AIDS, and do so much more ...

So, I wanted to find an enemy that our lawmakers could use to justify increasing the huge military budget without looking like complete fools or crooks -- which is what they looked like at the time.

But my enemy search wasn�t going well. No enemy was mean enough for the job and the giant budget.

Then the World Trade Center was attacked. Suddenly, our nation was focused on terrorists, seemingly a perfect fit for my enemy job posting. And, sure enough, in the wake of 9/11 our politicians not only stood proudly behind the mammoth Pentagon budget, but rushed to throw even more money at the military -- about $40 billion worth in $20 billion chunks.

But as the stock of defense contractors began to soar, people quickly began to wonder what was really going on. Were politicians using the endless "war on terrorism" to provide a direct feeding tube from the U.S. Treasury to the bank accounts of special interests, who finance their campaigns?

In a word, yes.

Even Lawrence Korb, a top defense official under Ronald Reagan, says we�re spending tens of billions of dollars on new submarines, planes, and tanks that will be just as useless at fighting terrorists as our current high tech wonders. Korb says that the Pentagon has more than enough money to fight terrorism -- even if its budget were trimmed by 15 percent or more.

In other words, the Pentagon needs to be smarter, not fatter. Why does the Defense Department need $400 billion to fight enemies armed with $5 box cutters?

For perspective, Bush�s much-hyped "axis-of-evil nations" (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) spend $12 billion annually on their militaries combined. Iraq spends less than $2 billion.

Furthermore, most of us understand that a rational response to terrorism should focus on much more than the military. We need to fight poverty abroad and at home, reduce the debts of impoverished nations, achieve energy independence, and create a more just and compassionate world.

This broader approach to "fighting terrorism" recognizes that our own nation�s security depends on the security of the planet. And the problem is, we are not spending enough on the stuff required to make our planet more secure in the long term.

While the administration wants to spend $400 billion on the Pentagon, America would spend only $10 billion on foreign aid, $8 billion on the entire EPA, $4 billion on the Centers for Disease Control, and less than $1 billion on refugee programs and the Peace Corps.

And, though 9/11 changed many things in America, our public schools are still crumbling and millions of our kids still need health insurance.

So, with all the basic unmet needs we�ve got in our own country -- and with all that we should do abroad in the name of human and planetary decency -- Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret.), former CIA Director Stansfield Turner, and other military experts cannot figure out why the administration proposes to spend over 1 billion dollars per day on the Pentagon. This is enough money to make countless dreams come true at home and abroad. Our rich nation has the potential to do so much good in the world.

Terrorism, horrible for sure, is not an enemy that requires the military buildup that we are witnessing in our nation. So, I still think America lacks an enemy that justifies the Pentagon budget. Our politicians need help, or they are going to start to look really stupid.

My enemy search continues. Let me know if you have any killer ideas.

Ben Cohen is co-founder of Ben and Jerry�s. Join Ben in putting an end to the insanity in Washington D.C. Write him at info@truemajority.com.