This is, without a doubt, going to be one of the most difficult pieces I’ve ever written. I’m going to take a stance that isn’t going to be popular with a lot of people who read this blog and who I consider to be very good friends, but I ask that you all hear me out on this.
There’s been much talk in the media lately about troops and the war, and since I try to stay at least partially relevant to what’s going on in the news, I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the war effort.
I sat up late Tuesday night refreshing Twitter on my phone to follow a conversation between a friend of mine and some random pro-war Republican. My friend took the approach that we shouldn’t be there building an empire because our military is for our defense. The random Twitter user took the “kill them before they kill us” side of the argument.
Our military is for defending the nation, but if you accept the argument that being on the offensive is the best way to defend, I can see where you’d support the war effort in Afghanistan. I don’t accept that argument, and I don’t support the war effort in Afghanistan, but I can see how someone could follow that logic.
For this post, though, I really don’t want to get into either of those arguments. They both have merit (at least to a degree), and there’s not much chance of convincing anybody in favor of the war to suddenly become against it. I’d like to take a separate look at this issue of war.
Money.
I could almost (emphasis on “almost”) be convinced that if we had cash on hand to fund the war, that sending a bunch of troops to Afghanistan would be a smart move. But we don’t have the money. The war is a fiscally irresponsible, deficit spending effort that nobody who claims to be fiscally conservative should be able to embrace. Being selectively irresponsible with money is like being pro-choice 3 days a week.
This deficit spending isn’t like a private citizen on a spending spree with a credit card. Money is being created – not just borrowed – to fund this war, so we are all being taxed through inflation. This war is a big source of the weakening of the U.S. dollar, and I fear that the real impact of the recent money creation hasn’t yet been realized and that skyrocketing prices are not too far away.
Representative John Duncan (R-TN) recently said that there is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. He’s right. No single one of us who has been upset with federal government spending at home can sanely argue for increased spending in this war.
I know a lot of people who will read this favor the war, the increased troops President Obama is sending, and the continued effort in Afghanistan until every terrorist is confirmed dead. And I’m not foolish enough to believe that words I write will have any impact on convincing you of anything to the contrary.
However, I challenge each of you to give serious consideration to the issue of funding the war with newly created dollars. Consider where the money is coming from and what is being done to the strength of the dollar (and how it impacts our economy). Then ask yourself if it’s possible for a fiscal conservative to support this ongoing war effort.
Your answer might surprise you.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for the mention about my conversation with that guy on Twitter. Feel free to use my name anytime, good or bad. Some things to also note in my opposition to the war:
Constitutionality – If this war is just, and not merely a war on a religion or an ideology we don’t agree with, why have we not declared war in accordance with our Constitution? I can tell you why we haven’t. If we limit ourselves to the confines of the Constitution (what a wacky and crazy idea, since it’s just a “G**d*** piece of paper”), we would have to go back to Congress and justify our entanglements in Pakistan (who is an ally, but that hasn’t stopped us from bombing their civilians) and Iran (who has yet to enrich uranium beyond a level achieved by Southern Company’s Georgia Power). By declaring that we are pursuing a “Global War on Terror” during the Bush administration, we are attempting to give ourselves “carte blanche” when it comes to where and when we can attack any nation around the world.
Imperialism – Muslim extremists are not attacking us because they hate us for the freedoms we enjoy here. They are attacking because we are trying to force our belief system upon them there. We’ve been telling people around the world how to live for the better part of the last 100 years. They don’t care about how we live, but they want us to stop telling them how to live. The foreign aid we “give” to them has strings attached to it. Every dollar we give in aid must be spent on products and services provided by American companies. Not that I am supporting foreign aid, but what benefit do they really get when they cannot spend money to suit their needs? Other strings our “gift” includes: policy decisions made on our behalf and unbalanced trade where American companies dump exports, to name a few. Would we stand for it? No.
They use tactics like suicide bombs and 747s into the side of buildings because we weren’t listening, just like their governments in the region. The only way they see to make the governments there listen is to resort to violence against civilians, so the logic follows that it would work with us as well. What our military invasion response did was awaken the inner extremist in many of those who were previously able to sit idly by, until Team America showed up to blow up their homes, mosques, and “Main Streets.”
I had a good think about this before I decided to reply. I would say that I am one of those people that falls into the, “The best defense is a good offense” camp. But, that is not what I wanted to write about. Instead, I believe that it is a mistake to boil down whether we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan to a money issue.
First of all, I do believe that the federal government has incorrectly taken control of things that should be left up to the state, local, or private sectors. By doing this, they are spending tax dollars on things they have no business being involved in. However, I do believe that that job of protecting our citizens is one of the things that falls to the federal government to control and manage.
Secondly, I would agree that the federal government is wasting much of its tax revenue on wasteful programs that should be eliminated or turned over to state, local, or private management. I would even agree that the federal government does a poor job of managing the military and that much of what is spent could be eliminated by better efficiency and organization. The argument could probably be made that the federal government could “afford” this war if they were not wasting all of the money they shouldn’t be wasting.
So, what does all this mean? Let me pitch this whole war thing another way…
Let’s say you have 3 kids. One day one of them is walking down the hall in your house and just drops over dead. No warning. Nothing that you could have done to stop it. A few days later you find out that your child had a rare disease that has no symptoms, and without warning can strike. Since you did not know there was any danger there was no indication that you should do something to protect this child.
To make matters worse you find out that that disease is caused, in most cases, not by something that you did, but rather by the combination of places that you have lived. It is just luck-of-the-draw that your two remaining children also have this disease in them just waiting to strike with no notice.
The doctor tells you that your remaining children could quite possibly live a full life with the disease never affecting them. But, the disease is there and he gives you 50:50 odds that it could strike again at any time. The doctor then tells you that there is an experimental treatment that so far has had great success and would raise the chance of survival to 85% or 90%. There is one problem though. Since the treatment is experimental your insurance will not cover it and the cost is $1,000,000 per child.
You know without even looking that you do not have $2,000,000 sitting in your bank accounts to write this check that has a high likelihood of protecting your 2 children. You are lucky though, the drug company is willing to give your children the treatment in return for you making monthly payments. You review the loan documents and in the fine print you find that if you die before the full $2,000,000, plus interest, is paid back you are obligating your children to continue the payments for you.
You have two choices. 1) Stick to your “no deficit spending” policy that you have for your family and take the gamble that the disease will never strike. 2) Realize that there are some things that you do not gamble with and commit you and your children to $2,000,000 worth of debt.
I think the choice is pretty clear and simple… at least for me. It is not the money the matters, it is about protecting the people that you are responsible to protect. I think you can be pro-war or anti-war, but I don’t think you can simply use the “we can’t afford” it argument to not choose a side. Either we can’t afford it because we shouldn’t be there to begin with, or we can’t afford to not afford it because we should be there. That is the real issue that needs to be decided, and the real issue that Obama had to struggle with.