The Cost Of War

The US has channeled hundreds of billions of dollars into both Iraq and Afghanistan, with a combined total of over 1 trillion dollars. The notion of rebuilding the nations we have invaded and leaving them with a government that can protect and sustain itself is noble. Perhaps one of the noblest. Granted, such an undertaking is self-serving to the United States. Nevertheless, it yields the potential to do the populace at large of those countries some great good in the long run. It's not an easy job though. It's not going to be over for a long time. It's going to cost more giant sums of money in the years ahead. Is the spending of all that money to accomplish that good deed worth the social cost in the United States? Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC, makes the case that it's not even feasible. All the money that has been poured into Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent at home. We could be rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure that has been crumbling, tending to some of our own social issues and urban distress. Our economy is frayed, China holds enough bonds against the US that if they cashed them in all at once, we would be toppled, our national debt is astronomical. If my personal finances were in such a mess, I would cut back my extracurricular activities and take care of my family first. At least until my checkbook balanced. What do you think? Is our national safety at such a large risk that we need to jeopardize our way of life by spending more time and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or should we pull back, defend our borders, and let some parts of the world tend to themselves for a while? Rachel Maddow states her case plainly, and the other link will take you to an article in Time which outlines some areas where the Obama administration could, and possibly SHOULD spend 1 trillion dollars. Both give some good insight and provoke some critical thinking.