The Cost of War

It is really very interesting. When a Republican president decides to bomb a country back into the stone ages, no one quibbles about the costs. On the other hand, when a Democratic president does the same thing, all eyes are on the bottom line.

President Obama thinks the United States needs to continue the war in Afghanistan. Suddenly the same lawmakers who acted like jellyfish when George Bush (#43) wanted a shopping spree have found their backbones. Opponents of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan called on lawmakers to use the power of the purse to shut those wars down, without success. Many lawmakers supported funding the wars because conservatives questioned their patriotism if they did not. They feared criticism then. Apparently they are not so worried now.

Perhaps the difference in cost-consciousness has to do with the current recession. This recession was brought on, in part, by the costs of war. Continuing the war may prolong it, but ending the war will probably not end the recession. An extra couple of hundred-thousand soldiers mustering out of the service might do bad things to unemployment, though.

The difference could also be that the number of American families who have sacrificed a young person to the war has grown. Those who have yet to lose someone see the reality all too clearly. When the U.S. originally invaded Afghanistan, the airwaves were full of patriotic jingoism. Five thousand flag-draped caskets later, the rhetoric may sound a little hollow. Cindy Sheehan never got her answer from President Bush, "What did my son die for?" Now others may have realized they don't know the answer either. They see the true cost of war and want an end to it. Perhaps Americans no longer support the war.

Many people correctly predicted that Obama would not shut down the war machine. Those who would prefer the U.S. to be in no war are bound to be disappointed. Obama has decided that there is a good purpose to remaining in Afghanistan. Congress once thought there was good purpose in going there.

It is also interesting that congress sometimes votes with the American people, and sometimes against them. Lawmakers vote the popular will on things like war, but roundly ignore what people think when it comes to health care. Maybe the defense industry doesn't spend as much on them as the health care industry. Maybe the vice president no longer stands to make billions of dollars from defense contracts. Whatever the case, it is true that the United States Congress has become increasingly driven by its own agenda. That agenda is supposed to be carrying out the will of the people. Whether they do it or not is questionable.

If lawmakers have now changed their minds and want to use the power of the purse to force an end to the war, so be it. It is always better to be at peace than at war, but if, as Cicero said, we cannot be safe and save our liberty and country without war, then war is necessary.