SEARCH BLOG: IRAQ and IRAN
That's a pretty succinct summary of that proposition on the table at Economist's View.
Of all of the reasons to simply leave, that one seems a little hard to accept.
Wars are dirty things fought for many reasons... some noble and some shameful.But of all of the reasons for getting out of a war, the crassest is that "it costs too much."
Sometimes the information available at the beginning of a war is revised by the end of the war... not because the information was lies at the beginning, but because it was wrong or partially wrong because good information was difficult to obtain.
Sometimes wars are won, but the peace is lost... not because the military is incapable, but because politics makes up impossible rules for the military to retain its victory.
Sometimes we are for the war before we are against it... we thought it would be like a TV mini-series that runs for a couple of weeks and then it's over, and now we are tired of the same plot.
Sometimes we believe we are being noble and self-sacrificing by going into war... and then we don't like the reality of the sacrifice and are willing to be less noble so that we can quit.
Sometimes we are philosophically against war of any kind... and all of the negative aspects of war gives us a sense of moral superiority to oppose it.
The ranting continues at Economist's Blog (90 comments at last count) and most of it has nothing to do with the original post about the VA having a difficult time facing it because of the number of soldiers being injured. The number of injuries from the war has been overstated in the original post and, conveniently, the fact that the VA will only have to treat a relatively small portion of the total injuries (because many are handled either in Iraq or at Walter Reed... has been ignored. However, addressing the personal insults addressed to anyone who doesn't believe that cost is the only consideration, I have posted the following there:
I see the steam is still billowing.
The point I was making about the VA is that it has a large budget, but the staff is stretched because so many veterans use the facilities for treatments that could be provided closer to their own homes by either hospitals, clinics or family doctors... if the VA had a system in place like medicare for those purposes.
Then more personnel would be freed up to work with soldiers who needed continued treatment... from Iraq who were among those not completely treated in Iraq... or those from any previous military-related injuries.
The rest of the ranting here is like listening to protesters who believe the louder they shout the more meaningful their sounds.
BTW, I'm satisfied that my military service was honorable and I can call myself patriotic. Even if you haven't done so and want to say that my support of the war effort is wrong, I won't call you unpatriotic. Your concern for what is happening is reasonable. But, while there are economic consequences surrounding war, it is not about economics... it is about politics... always has been and always will.
So trying to justify stopping a war because of economic consequences is blowing into the wind. War is about politics and will. If either of those falter, then the war is abandoned. If you are against the war, then it is enough to just say that and that your political efforts are aimed to end it immediately. There will be consequences, both economic and political in the long term for an immediate pull-out... and I don't believe even Nancy Pelosi will vote for that.