With President Obama expected to announce a troop increase in Afghanistan somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 in a prime-time address to the nation on Tuesday night, I'll be interested in hearing the response of the deficit hypocrites in Congress, particularly the Senate. Let's see if those who rant and rave about the cost of health care reform hold the cost of war to the same standard, that it not add to the deficit. I'm not holding my breath.
Estimates are that the price tag on troops for the Afghan war is $1 billion per thousand per year. Add that to the $65 billion we're already spending annually for 2 wars and the total will be right at $100 billion per year. Will Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and the entire Senate Republican caucus even bat an eye or voice one word of concern over that figure? I doubt it.
Rep. David Obey, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has it right, in my opinion. Any authorization for additional spending on troop increases in Afghanistan should contain a corresponding tax increase to pay for it. An across-the-board "war surtax" on everyone. As Rep. Obey told ABC News:
And that's just the financial costs. Not even taking into account the physical, psychological, and emotional toll that repeated deployments take on the soldiers and their families. For example, the 101st Airborne, scheduled to go to Afghanistan in early 2010, will be on its 5th deployment since 2002.
Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent adds this:
There are a couple of things I want to hear from President Obama on Tuesday night. He has said he intends to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. I want to know what the "job" is and what "finishing" it means in terms of both troops and time. Speaking of time, according to the New York Times:
That sounds like a recipe for an open-ended commitment to me. I hope I'm wrong.
Estimates are that the price tag on troops for the Afghan war is $1 billion per thousand per year. Add that to the $65 billion we're already spending annually for 2 wars and the total will be right at $100 billion per year. Will Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and the entire Senate Republican caucus even bat an eye or voice one word of concern over that figure? I doubt it.
Rep. David Obey, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has it right, in my opinion. Any authorization for additional spending on troop increases in Afghanistan should contain a corresponding tax increase to pay for it. An across-the-board "war surtax" on everyone. As Rep. Obey told ABC News:
"The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people who've been asked to sacrifice are military families. And they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."
And that's just the financial costs. Not even taking into account the physical, psychological, and emotional toll that repeated deployments take on the soldiers and their families. For example, the 101st Airborne, scheduled to go to Afghanistan in early 2010, will be on its 5th deployment since 2002.
Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent adds this:
"If President Obama orders an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, he will be deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war, leaving few units in reserve in case of an unforeseen emergency and further stressing a force that has seen repeated combat deployments since 2002."
There are a couple of things I want to hear from President Obama on Tuesday night. He has said he intends to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. I want to know what the "job" is and what "finishing" it means in terms of both troops and time. Speaking of time, according to the New York Times:
"One administration official involved in Afghanistan policy said the president and his top advisers were thinking in terms of "exit strategies" and not necessarily "exit timetables."
That sounds like a recipe for an open-ended commitment to me. I hope I'm wrong.
If it involves killing people they will not have a problem with spending all of our money. If it involves taking care of our own citizens? HAHA you must be joking.
Without a draft we get things like Blackwater.
Yes you can. How exactly does fighting half way around the world keep us safe?
We have to pay for our wars? Since when?
A war tax, say a 10% income tax surcharge, and / or compulsory military service would soon (as in so damned quick it would make your head spin) bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If there is one thing Americans absolutely hate about their government, it is having to actually pay for it.
We already have a war tax. It's called "the draft". It's time to use it again. Without it, I doubt we'll be out of there anytime soon, given Obama's likely announcement.
I agree completely. One man's wasteful spending is another man's critical need. Of course it's politically impossible to vote against any defense appropriation as the opponent will cast the decision as 'not supporting our troops' heck maybe even 'anti-American'.
Pass a war tax. Apply it to everyone.
Bobo, you really think all those righties who drive around with "Support our Troops" stickers and call the liberals "un-American" are gonna go for that? LOL, I don't think so. Let's just wait and see how many support the war they wanted to cram down everyone's thoat so much when it's gonna cost them some more money.
I think we need that war tax.
And paying it should be very inconvenient so that we are all reminded our inconvenience is nothing compared to what our troops experience.
Paying your war tax in one lump sum would be illegal.
You should have to deposit it in a different place once a week or so. In exact denominations.
We should feel the cost, the true cost, in every aspect of paying that tax.
Because that war was lost years ago. Maybe it's time to pay up.
When you "progress" to the point that funding a war is important and making sure everyone has insurance is much, much less, you have sacrificed your humanity for stupidity.
Unfortunately, one has to, as many Americans hold some variant of the position.
Des,
I would really recommend everybody follow this link, and read Commander Jeff Huber's views on this.
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/11/dumb-and-dumber-wars.html#more
I'd also recommend reading the comments... to help us all understand how we can "afford" this war.
And, then, if you don't get madder than hell...
What can I say?
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Unlike healthcare, I think the war is a total waste of our money, time and American lives. There is no return on investment that I can see. No country has ever been able to stabilize Afghanistan. There has never been a defined central governmental system in the country, the leadership is corrupt and we well documented history of failures by other nations to accomplish anything there. This war is a mistake. Eight years already down the toilet, how many more? 1? 2? 10? We cannot continue and cannot afford to the world's 9-1-1!
Mie,
Even though I'm willing to concede to your argument I think it has to be kept in perspective. I know my position is not a popular one in any quarter, but I believe the only hope for America, or Russia, or China, or Europe, or Afghanistan is to realize we are all one species, the human species. If we are to raise the level of our existence it must be done en masse or the effort will fail.
I've already heard the counter argument from the 'deficit neutral' crowd.
"The most fundamental and truly the only valid function of government is national defense!"
How does one argue with such a world view? Answer...one doesn't.
If we can't "afford" health care -- we can't afford war.
If we want to "nation build" we should start with "rebuilding" our own.
Our cities are in decay. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Unemployment is at a all-time high.
We need to start our "charity" at home.
We cannot send any more of our young people to die --- for this horrible "mistake."
Who is this person in the White House?
What have they done with the person I voted for?