Is it wrong to believe that if we pay a lot of money to sustain our military, we might as well put it to use?
Realistically is there any long-term downside to maintaining a perpetual war in the Middle East?
From this layperson’s perspective, it seems inevitable that some money will go to people who perhaps don’t deserve it. In this case maybe those are military contractors or some other middleman in the chain.
But with the understanding that squashing out all profiteers completely is unrealistic, it seems a worthy cause to continue a long-term financially sustainable war so long as it actually does indeed keep some of our enemies on the back foot for an indefinite period of time.
Clearly, the price you set on human life is pretty low, as perpetual war means perpetual deaths (and, if you’re more concerned about fiscal costs, injuries). Even supposing most of the dead and injured are not Americans, some are. Reintegrating injured soldiers have proven costly, and completely beyond our ability in the case of some of the mentally ill veterans.
War also means transferring a large amount of wealth out of the United States. I am not sure how that benefits the US. (ISIS, for example, is using stolen weapons originally bought and paid for with US funds, and we’re not seeing any real benefit there.) I assume the logic is that after the war, the US would have closer ties with the region and profit from increased trade and access to resources. If the war is perpetual, we do not reap these benefits.
We currently rely on a volunteer force. We might not be able to do that with a perpetual war (though we’ve been at war for near 15 years, and it doesn’t seem to have had much effect).
If economic stimulation is the goal, it’d be easier to spend $5 billion to build an aircraft carrier and on its maiden voyage, sail it to the middle of the Pacific and sink it.
History seems to be telling us that we create more enemies than we “keep on the back foot”. We’re good at killing people and destroying things in the M.E. Winning friends and building civil societies-- not so much.
This sounds like bully mentality…I’m bigger so I might as well beat on smaller people. It’s just wrong. Perpetual death and maiming of people just because we can…really?
Other than that:
Eventually world opinion would turn on us as we would be the terrorists.
We would not be able to spend as much money on R&D if we are constantly fighting and may fall behind the power curve.
The cost of disabled veterans would have to be covered by the government.
I believe that the cost of fighting a war uses borrowed money. We don’t have a ‘bombing account’ where we set aside money for fighting a long term war. We have to pay debt back and I doubt we could borrow infinite dollars. (Maybe we can invest in Cray Computer Bitcoin mining computers and pay debt…but that would be craycray.)
Destabilization of a region would probably destabilize areas outside of the combat zone. Would our allies continue to support us, use of airspace etc, if we are causing chaos in their countries? The cost of their support would probably rise as time goes on, if they choose to continue support our actions.
If we went ‘all in’ all alone we may find ourselves, in fact, all alone. In a world
economy we would probably suffer.
Unless you are talking about smaller actions using Special Forces, CIA agents and unmanned aircraft…look to see how well we are doing in Yemen.
IMHO money would be better spent by carpet bombing with food, clothes and dvds rather than weapons most of the time. Their are times for combat but it should never be a first response just because we can.
In that same line of thought, we could just build enough refrigerators, TVs, air conditioners, and mobile power plants, and give them away to the communities we’ve ravaged.
This would:
Provide stimulus to US non-weapon manufacturing,
Start winning-over people by improving their daily lives instead of constantly enraging them by destroying their infrastructure and killing loved-ones,
Be less risky. If these things fell into the wrong hands at some point, no biggee.
Probably be less expensive that the constant state of war,
Probably be more effective in peacefully stabilizing the region and furthering our interests.
Or we could just give them away to our people! Imagine that. Or let’s take it further, and not spend $5 billion at all, and just let everyone all the refrigerators, TVs, air conditioners, and mobile power plants they need.
Although on a more serious note, the problem with giving away stuff is that it encourages rational actors to antagonize us and get free stuff. When we give them bullets, it makes them less likely to bother us. Now terrorists aren’t rational actors (though that’s a debate in itself), but there are plenty of more level headed groups out there.
History demonstrates otherwise, as has already been mentioned. The more people we hurt and kill, the more those people and/or their friends & relatives want revenge; that’s human nature.
They may be vengeful, but they also know there’s nothing they can do about it (assuming they’re acting rationally). Perpetual war as the OP envisions is obviously not sustainable, but the long term consequences of bribing our enemies to not fight is equally ruinous.
It’s also morally abhorrent; we shouldn’t take money from good people and give it to people who want to do us harm.
They can kill Americans and otherwise act against our interests. And they do.
And not seeking revenge for an attack is what would be irrational, it invites more of the same.
You presume that they’d be our enemies in the first place if we were sending them subsidies and aid instead of killing them. Or just leaving them alone. And, you presume that we are the “good people”.
Revenge is an emotion, not a rational decision. Taking an option that you can reasonably anticipate will do you more harm than good is irrational. Especially when the destruction would be orders by of magnitude worse on the terrorist’s side.
That option has been passed decades if not centuries ago. There’s enough bad blood to fuel wars for generations. So given that we can’t go back in time, showing that we’re not to be messed with is the best answer going forwards.
The average American is a good person, and the average person who wants to kill Americans is a bad person. I don’t think that’s very disputable. You don’t make friends by paying ransom. It’s not a sustainable long term solution, because our enemies will keep on raising the amount that we pay them. They’re not going to come around to the American way if we give them stuff.
Now small fowls flew screaming over the yet yawning gulf; a sullen white surf beat against its steep sides; then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago.*
Why d’you think we French got The Bomb ? Scaring the Russians ? Pffft. By the time their tanks made it to France, what would have been the point ? No, we got it in small part for the Germans.
But mainly ? For the Brits. Yeah, don’t think we don’t remember Waterloo and Mers El Kebir. Slip up once, go on, make our day.
