This past week's dog n pony show on the Hill confirmed, to even the most ardent doubter, that the democrats are heavily invested in a failed 'boooshitler' military policy in Iraq. General Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker took heavy enemy fire; gave as good as they got, but the congressional fools on the Hill still demanded 'change'. Change at any cost. All the while politicizing the financial cost of this protracted global fight - with other people's lives & futures on the line.
But how many dollars exactly? Is the huge multi-multi, billion dollar price tag for the GWT the strangling, 'we're in a depression!', economic detriment the demagogues claim? Frederick Kagan takes on that answer with an article entitled "Why Iraq Matters - Talking back to antiwar-party talking points."
We will consider below just how much of a diversion of resources away from more desirable domestic priorities the Iraq war actually is, but the more important point is simply this: Unless the advocates of defeat can show, as they have not yet done, that the consequences of losing are very likely to be small not simply the day after the last American leaves Iraq, but over the next five, ten, and 50 years, then what they are really selling is short-term relief in exchange for long-term pain.
Even if one believes that defeat is inevitable and withdrawal necessary, no American should take pleasure in the prospect of that defeat. But the key talking points now seem to be two: that the war costs too much, and that it is already inevitably lost whatever temporary progress the surge may have achieved. What follows is an exploration of these and a few other key antiwar talking points.
The War Costs Too Much
An increasingly popular talking point of the antiwar party is that the war simply costs too much and that we must end it and refocus on domestic priorities. This talking point has a number of variants:
The impact of the current war on the U.S. economy, finally, is far smaller than the impact of previous major conflicts. Military spending in World War II ranged from 17.8 percent of GDP to 37.5 percent; in Korea from 5.0 percent (in 1950 — 7.4 percent in 1951) to 14.2 percent; in Vietnam from 7.4 percent to 9.4 percent. Current expenditures on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars bring total defense expenditures to something well below 5 percent of GDP. Even granting the simplistic and misleading $3 trillion figure, $3 trillion is about 5 percent of the nearly $60 trillion American GDP over the five years of the war.
The war has caused the upcoming recession.
Using mercantilist arguments common in the 18th century but subsequently shown to be wrong, war opponents have successfully spread the notion that military spending is causing the economy to slow and contract — they have been successful enough that a large majority of Americans believe this falsehood to be true.
High gas prices are the result of the war — and ending the war would lower gas prices.
There is a huge failure of logic here.....
The war is consuming money that would otherwise be spent on more important domestic programs.
If only our schools were fully funded and the Air Force had to have bake-sales to buy bombers....
Etc.....
Mr. Kagan has 12 concise, and cogent points in all. A great read and just the the type of talking points one needs to counter the leftist 'bumper sticker' drivel.
A great big TY to Mike Shanin @ KMBZ radio.
"A great mind for our time."
