Could payback for the Iraq War be even worse than it was for the Vietnam War?

Things really don’t look all that rosy, and I have this bad feeling in my gut. I don’t know if it’s flashback or deja vu, but here’s part of what troubles me;
[li]The economy. Greenspan doesn’t seem overly optomistic. Nor do others.[/li][li]The cost of the war, and the ensuing occupation. Billions.[/li][li]Unemployment. There are going to be a bunch of troops who want nothing more than to come home, get out, and find a good paying job. There are none.[/li][li]Are we going to invade other countries in the Middle East who’s leadership poses a threat to our interests? Some of them really don’t like us. Tuff Stuff?[/li][li]Our position in the rest of the world. Can we handle being the biggest kid on the block? We’re still pretty new at it.[/li][/ul]
Not an educated arguement, just the opinion of how things may turn out from a layperson who’s “been there”. One who reads a lot.

The economy was much worse in the years after Vietnam - remember stagflation.
It will cost quite a bit to conduct the war and occupation, no argument there.
Well, its not like WWII or Vietnam when we drafted a whole bunch of people - the military size in terms of personal hasn’t been affected significatnly due to the war, and the affect on troops getting out will be the same as if there was no war.
We might, might not, have to wait and see.
I don’t think we are doing that bad of job at it. Certainly we have been more humane than any other top powers in past.

I’m no economist by a LONG shot, but wouldn’t the cost of the occupation help the economy a bit? When the army spends money, isn’t that mostly American businesses getting that dough?

It’ll hose the budget of course, though.

You mean that’s not Evian water in those bottles?
Big military spending is not really that good for the economy. Something about the way the money moves, IIRC. Not enough retail?
A lot more troops (historically) get out of the military after a war than in peacetime. Re-inlistment and recruitment also go down.
I haven’t checked, but I’d bet that enlistment went way up after 9/11 and the onset of the Iraq war.

What will help the economy is lower oil prices and not being at war. War is bad for business (in spite of what the conspiracy nuts tell you) because it breeds uncertainty and companies hate that.

While you make good points, this isn’t a factor. Remember, the troop are all volunteers. They’re in the army because they choose to be there. When the war ends, they have to stay in the service until their hitch is up. Some will reinlist. In any case, you won’t see a bunch of veterans suddenly dumped into the job market like you did after WWII.

As for National Guard members who were activated, the war will probably be short, so their jobs will still be there.

Read this good article about the Broken Window Fallacy.

There. Now you’re that much closer to being an economist!


I don’t think that militarily we’ll feel much of a burn, but economically I’m wondering if this is the beginning of a long fall (or rather a catalyist to the one already in progress).

“There. Now you’re that much closer to being an economist!”
Say that again and I’ll break your freakin’ nose.
Metaphorically, of course. :wink:
BTW, friedo, thanks for the link.
War ain’t good for technology neither, but that’s another thread.