About wouldn’t it be better to bribe our enemy into joining our side rather than bomb them into submission?
I would dare say that the GNP of Afghanistan (outside of opium sales) would not be several billions (given the estimated long term planning that this war will last.)
So you are saying that if we try to Bribe the enemies with the suburban homes, swimming pools and Pathfinders, others would sign up just to get the deals?
Though I do agree bombing them is a disincentive ( is that a word?)I wonder if we (the US) will end up broke from this affair.
All the Taliban really has to do is lay low in their caves for however long (they outlasted the Soviets 10 year battle) and watch us bleed ourselves dry.
Why not encourage defectors with lovely parting gifts
Well not just to get the same deals. But if I were considering attacking the US for whatever reason, I would be a lot more inclined to go for it if the worst case scenario was that I got a suburban home than I would be if the worst case scenario was that I got bombed to smithereens.
You have to consider the size of the entire US gov budget. Looked at in context, $1B a month is not a lot of money. (By example, the airline industry is getting a $15B bailout).
Better yet, bribe our enemy’s allies so they no longer support them. Not a silver bullet, but it’s one tool in the overall strategy. Consider how we’re cancelling debts/sanctions on Pakistan for their help in the war.
Probably reducing the deficit. Hey it’s a lot of money, but my point was that the US isn’t about to go broke from it. (See this link - in 2001 the gov took in about $2 trillion.
Ok, I’m puzzled here. Is this a serious question, or are you just asking for the heck of it?
Sure, we could just forego the expense and stay home. What’re a few thousand dead men, women and children worth these days? Surely not as much as this so-called ‘War’ is costing us, right? Of course, there’s bound to be even more of the same from these terrorists and others, but as long as nobody I know gets it, I guess it’s ok.
You’re not really asking this question, right? 'Cause if you’re asking, please give me a serious suggestion for responding to a threat of this magnitude. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for you, your family, me, my family, and all the other families in this country isn’t worth it, heck. I give up.
Its a value for money question. If you think that this war will achieve that, then fine. But if it doesn’t, then look at what is your government spending your tax dollars on.
I don’t know where people are getting the idea that one billion per month is a lot to spend on a war. This is a relatively minor war, and that’s certainly a lot less than we’ve spent on conflicts past (adjusted for inflation, of course.) War’s tend to expensive, after all, we are sending thousands of people to another part of the world along with machinery and supplies, that sort of thing isn’t cheap. Frankly, I was surprised that the monthly tab was so small when I first heard that. We have a military to keep the country safe. What would be the point if we refused to deploy it because of financial concerns.
Oh, and by the way, the cost of rebuilding the WTC will be much higher than the cost of the entire conflict.
When people talk about our government spending money, they act as if the money is “destroyed”. While much of this money is going to foreign goverments, most of it is being spent here, at home, in America. Nearly all of the infrastructure needs of carrying out a way is produced on this country by American workers and companies.
Countless times people act like their money was taken (taxes) and the government just spent it (thereby “throwing it away”). It’s really just a redistrubution of money back into the private sector, or back to American workers…for the most part.
I want to know what they are spending it on. I mean how much is spent by the military force by just sitting around a swapping thumbs when there is nothing to do. Or is this the cost of the operating a force in this action( verses operating the force in inaction) does that make sense?
in case it doesn’t make sense let me try this. we have a carrier tooling around the pacific doing nothing but training. we have another carrier in a combat zone running missions. what is the cost diff between the 2? I get extra fuel for the extra sorties and bombs. maybe extra combat pay. but I dont get $1 billion /month. what am I missing?
From what I hear and read, it’s exactly what’s happening currently. Various afghan tribe chiefs, casual allies of the Talibans and local commanders on the north front are being bribed to stop supporting them / stop fighting/ join the northern alliance…
