Many of the Republican candidates for president are calling for all out war against ISIS, including sending a force of overwhelming size to rub them out. Given our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, such an operation runs over a billion dollars per week.
How would this be paid for? As I see it, there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow from the Chinese and increase the deficit. Cutting spending on discretionary programs just won’t produce the necessary funding.
How are either of these alternatives a conservative position?
I’ve not heard the “overwhelming size” part. Can you cite that “many” of the Republican candidates for president are calling for that? Lindsey Graham, probably one of the most hawkish, has thrown out a 10K - 20K number.
With the lives of patriotic young men and women, most likely including some of my friends, along with massive debts to be paid off by the survivors and their children; and with much of the reputation and international goodwill that the US had restored after the last disastrous war of choice.
I’d guess ‘taxes’, though if you look at the Gulf War I model some non-combatant nations (like Japan) ponied up substantial sums as well. However, it would be paid for exactly as we paid for our Afghanistan and Iraq adventures.
I’m not sure we’d need the same level of force to ‘rub them out’ as we needed to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for years on end, unless as part of this strategy we’d also be occupying and trying to bring ‘democracy’ to Syria. If it’s a straight up elimination of ISIS then ‘overwhelming force’ isn’t actually all that much from the US’s perspective. Assuming that Turkey and Iraq, say, allow the US to stage out of their countries, a fairly modest (for the US) force could probably rip through ISIS along side Kurd and other local forces at least as rapidly as we ripped through the Taliban and Saddam’s merry men. The trick is and has always been what do we do after that, not having the ability to basically crush any sort of force that is fighting a set piece battle as ISIS has been doing. They would, of course, go back to the previous AQ/terrorist/insurgent model, and you’d be in a years long guerrilla insurgency, but defeating them in the field? The US and it’s allies would crush them like an empty beer can in a straight up fight, which is what this would initially be.
We’d run a deficit, just like we always do. We don’t ‘borrow from the Chinese’ btw, we sell currency and bonds on a global market that they buy, so we’d still do that, but what we’d really do is simply run a deficit to do this…just like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Using your $1 billion a week estimate and doubling that we are talking about ~$100 billion dollars…hardly something that’s going to break the country. Even if you double and triple that again it’s not something the US couldn’t fairly easily do, though it would be piling on more debt on top of what we already have. But nothing new there. I’m not sure why you think this is unachievable from a fiscal perspective, or why we’d need any sort of draconian policies to make it happen.
None of this is an endorsement of us doing this, I hasten to add. I think our current policy from Obama is pretty optimal, to be honest, using US and other allied air power coupled with local ground forces I think is working pretty well. However, from a pure military perspective and assuming we are only talking about defeating ISIS (i.e. easy, achievable goals that aren’t subject to mission creep) and is doable even if painful from a fiscal perspective as well.
I don’t think it would create an undue burden, I just think it is inconsistent for Republicans to demand, with the goal of cutting the deficit, that all domestic discretionary spending increases must include a plan for offsetting spending cuts elsewhere; and raising taxes is unthinkable. But when it comes to operations in Syria, apparently the deficit is no longer an issue.
This is a separate issue from whether or not we should commit ground forces against ISIS; even if there was broad bipartisan support, the issue of deficit reduction is still a legitimate debate. I think if deficit spending is acceptable for an invasion of Syria, so are tax increases, and both should be on the table.
Say 1 Billion a week is for 1 year would be $52 Billion on top of a military budget of $550 so large but not impossible. Since we’re being rational and not running for the GOP nomination we’d raise taxes.
Income Tax receipts totaled $1540 Billion recently so a 3% increase would suffice to cover the cost.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I don’t think it would create an undue burden, I just think it is inconsistent for Republicans to demand, with the goal of cutting the deficit, that all domestic discretionary spending increases must include a plan for offsetting spending cuts elsewhere; and raising taxes is unthinkable. But when it comes to operations in Syria, apparently the deficit is no longer an issue.
[/QUOTE]
They are politicians, of COURSE they are inconsistent. Democrats do the same thing…they are against deficit spending when it’s against what they want but are for it when it’s something they want to do. The Republicans are going for a twofer with this rhetoric…getting more defense spending and Doing Something About ISIS on the one hand, and using it as a club, in theory, to cut some of the domestic spending they and more importantly some of their base doesn’t want to pay for, just like some in the Democratic base doesn’t want to spend money on defense, which they see as a waste, while being good with more domestic spending that they want and think is right.
Same thing, really. Each side talks about ‘deficit reduction’ when it suits them, and it becomes this large, almost sacred need…except when they want to do something that the other side doesn’t like but will cost more, then it’s fine to blow through the budget and spend in a deficit, since it really doesn’t matter. It’s a bit ironic that supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans are good with this when the shoe is on their foot, but not really all that surprising.
At any rate, from either a fiscal or military perspective, the US (and presumably other coalition members) using direct ground forces against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is doable and wouldn’t be more of a strain than either the Afghanistan or Iraq adventures (probably a lot less a strain, depending on the actual mission). That doesn’t mean both US major parties won’t spin it the way they think plays best to their base. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea either…just because we CAN do something, doesn’t mean we SHOULD. I learned that from the Iraq Gulf War II Electric Boogaloo, and it’s a lesson I’ve totally taken to heart now.
I have to doubt we’d get broad bi-partisan support for boots on the ground…surly not?? Have I missed a sea change in folks actually seriously contemplating this??
Surly not. I just wanted to take that argument off the table. Marco Rubio raised that issue when he was asked how much it would cost to wage an open-ended war in Syria, and he tried to deflect the question by saying we will do whatever it takes to protect the Homeland. I suspect others will try that as well, if asked.
What exactly is wrong with just drone-striking ISIS indefinitely, 24/7/365, from the comfort of a drone operator’s room in Nevada?
What necessitates a ground war?
From who’s perspective? From the US’s? About the only thing I can think of is that the longer this drags on the longer ISIS has opportunity to strike out at us, our allies and our interests. It’s also disturbing to the markets, though I can’t say that oil has spiked up because of this. But, really, not that much outside of domestic political consumption and fear that we aren’t doing enough. Syria? Yeah, the longer this mess drags on the more people are killed or rendered homeless, which will continue as long as ISIS has a major foothold in Syria (in reality, probably longer than that, since destroying ISIS wouldn’t solve all their problems and make everything unicorns and bunnies). Neighboring countries like Iraq and Turkey? Same as the above…the longer this drags on and the longer ISIS is allowed to remain in power the more costly it will be for them, and more potential for bad things to happen. Europe? Refugees will continue to be an issue as long as this drags on (same with those neighboring countries). Other regional powers? The longer it drags on the more bad things can or could potentially happen to them, including their own home grown problems flaring up. So, it depends on who you are looking to to answer those questions.
There isn’t a silver bullet. I, personally (being an American and far from the fight…and also tired of us carrying the water on these sorts of things, especially since we aren’t particularly good at nation building or whatever and we also get hammered by everyone else for doing anything) am good with the current strategy. I feel for the Syrian’s, really, but I don’t see anything good coming from US boots on the ground…or, really, anyone else putting boots on the ground (especially the Russians in support of Assad). But I can see how others would see it differently, even if there isn’t a silver bullet to fix everything, nor an easy solution to this mess. Doing nothing won’t solve the issue either, and in fact might make it much, much worse in the medium and long term. Doing Something™ might do the same.
I’m just glad I’m not the freaking president. :eek:
I’m saying that is what Bush was calling for. It’s right there in what I quoted. Here it is again (emphasis added):
Whether or not we can pull together such a coalition is another issue. But I don’t see Bush saying “if other countries won’t chip in, we’ll just do it ourselves”. Did you?
Democrats do the same thing…they are against deficit spending when it’s against what they want but are for it when it’s something they want to do. The Republicans are going for a twofer with this rhetoric…getting more defense spending and Doing Something About ISIS on the one hand, and using it as a club, in theory, to cut some of the domestic spending they and more importantly some of their base doesn’t want to pay for, just like some in the Democratic base doesn’t want to spend money on defense, which they see as a waste, while being good with more domestic spending that they want and think is right.