The Under-Funded War

There are some real myths surrounding the wars the US is now fighting.

First: Cost

Washington and the media insist that the war, that is the wars in Afghanistan, the Republic of the Philippines, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa, cost too much. So, some simple numbers: Since 2001 the United States has spent a bit more than one trillion dollars on the war. During the same period the total US Gross National Product is in excess of 100 trillion dollars. In short, we are spending less than 1% of our national wealth per year for something that both President Bush and President Obama state is vital to our national security.

If it is so vital, and I think it is, why is spending less than 1% of our wealth so extreme? A few nights ago the President suggested that the cost in Afghanistan could reach 300 billion dollars per year. Such a number still represents a tiny sum if it is indeed vital to our national security.

This is not too say that there hasn’t been a real cost in people, 5000 dead and 30000 wounded. which is a horrible price.  But, here too the numbers are illuminating. I recently saw a figure that estimated that roughly one million US citizens have participated in this war over the last 8 years. That is compared to a national population of 303 million. To put that in perspective, the US population in 1970 was 203 million, and the number of US citizens who took part in Viet Nam was a bit less than 7 million; 1/3 of a percent versus 3.5 percent.  Almost twelve times the level of involvement.

Second: Duration

We are told that we cannot have open-ended commitments (even though it is vital to our national security). Why not? In fact, if something is vital to our national security doesn’t that demand an open commitment? The logic of this argument escapes me.

The fact is that anything that is vital to our security requires commitment for however long it takes. Presidents in the past have made this case and the American people, who routinely have more sense then their elected servants in Washington or the “experts” in the media, have agreed. That is why there are still US forces in Korea (59 years), Japan (65 years), Germany (65 years), Italy (65 years), the Sinai (30 years). We kept forces in the Philippines from 1944 to 1993 (49 years). The American citizenry understands security and sustained commitment. It’s why we have kept a fleet of ships forward deployed to the western Pacific for more than 100 years (yes, 100 years).

The only people who don’t “get this” live within 30 or 40 miles of Washington DC and in a few select ivory towers around the country. The idea that we will commit to something that is stated to be vital to our national security - but only for 18 months - is lunacy.

Third: Nation Building

We are told nation building is impossible. Well, anyone who says that has never been to Seoul, Korea. We helped the Koreans rebuild their nation, the Germans, the French, the Italians and the Greeks, the Philippines, Japan, etc. Nation building is hard because it DOES require commitment. There are a host of “experts” (in more ivory towers) who will tell you that the cases cited above were ‘different’ and that the current candidates for nation building lack this or that trait and therefore can’t be successful candidates for nation-building.

I would suggest that the nations listed above are about as diverse a group of cultures as you would want. Yet we – they and the US working together – did engage in nation building. The only difference was the leadership in the 1940s and 1950s didn’t listen to any “experts” who insisted, because of their own lack of intellect and imagination and spine, that it couldn’t be done.

Nothing important is achieved quickly or at low cost in real sweat. The American people get that. It is fairly clear that the experts in Washington and the ivory towers don’t.