Skip to main content

Issues of war and peace (largely absent in this election) will save or doom us all

It  never ceases to amaze me that people who will go out and become activists for better health insurance or raising/lowering our taxes apparently have absolutely no understanding of the fact that those debates are all entirely moot.

What President Obama and Governor Romney have an unspoken agreement not to discuss is that fact that what is pushing our economy off the cliff, bankrupting our Treasury, and ultimately betraying the American experiment in freedom and democratic values is our foreign wars.

And it is not surprising to find out (gasp!) that the government has been lying to us all along (under both Bush and Obama) about what it all costs.

Here, reference a study at Brown University, is a first approach at the truth:

A new report out of Brown University estimates that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq–together with the counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan–will, all told, cost $4 trillion and leave 225,000 dead, both civilians and soldiers.
The group of economists, anthropologists, lawyers, humanitarian personnel, and political scientists involved in the project estimated that the cost of caring for the veterans injured in the wars will reach $1 trillion in 30 or 40 years. In estimating the $4 trillion total, they did not take into account the $5.3 billion in reconstruction spending the government has promised Afghanistan, state and local contributions to veteran care, interest payments on war debt, or the costs of Medicare for veterans when they reach 65.
The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, has assessed the federal price tag for the wars at $1.8 trillion through 2021. The report says that is a gross underestimate, predicting that the government has already paid $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.
More than 6,000 U.S. troops and 2,300 contractors have died since the wars began after Sept. 11. A staggering 550,000 disability claims have been filed with the VA as of 2010. Meanwhile, 137,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq have died in the conflict. (Injuries among U.S. contractors have also not yet been made public, further complicating the calculations of cost.) Nearly 8 million people have been displaced. [emphasis added]

Why does the truth about our perpetual war state take so long to come out, and when it does why will it be so thoroughly ignored by the politicians, the media, and the American people?

Because the Cold War never ended.  There was a brief interregnum between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 where the Defense-industrial complex was floundering.

That's when Bill Clinton actually made the only meaningful cuts in the Defense budget made since 1939--and the economy boomed.

Go back and read for yourself all the papers questing for an enemy to refocus our strategy against during the period 1992-2001.  Most of those essays concentrated on "rogue nations" with nuclear weapons potential (which is where we are moving now because we cannot keep up the fiction of a war against a nearly non-existent Al Qaeda much longer), and here is the ugly truth:  9/11 was a Godsend to the defense industry and the political slaves who support it.

What the so-called "war on terror" and the "Cold War" have in common is that they are both portrayed as multi-generational conditions, rather than as events, which is what wars have traditionally been in American history.  Properly sold to our citizenry, these conditions require massive tax burdens for defense, suppression of civil liberties, and ruling out any effective criticism of our wars abroad.

So let's just put it in economic terms, folks.  The cost of these wars ($4 TRILLION)--and that's not the Defense budget, that's the operational and consequential cost of the wars themselves--is so large that if you took it away, or even reduced it by half, guess what?

Lower taxes, a booming economy, and better health care for everybody.

Comments

delacrat said…
$4 Trillion

That's about $12,578 for every US citizen.

.... $18,433 for every US taxpayer.
tom said…
... and remember, if you vote for a Democrat or Republican for federal office this November, you are expressing your support for this wasteful spending of your money on endless undeclared wars.

Gary Johnson for President.
Scott Gesty for Congress
Eric Dondero said…
the issue that's missing from the election is the rise of worldwide Islamo-Naziism. Oopsie, is it politically incorrect to say that Islamists are hellbent on destroying the United States and imposing Sharia Law? I'm so, so sorry, for bringing up such a sticky subject on a left-libertarian blog. I do realize left-libertarians don't want to acknowledge the Islamist threat.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...