Kavekk wrote:
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/2006_12/76_83mr32.pdf
(Just so you know, the direct cost will be > 1 trillion before the end of next year - this is rather olde, but I can't be bothered to search out new, credible, sources).
(Just so you know, the direct cost will be > 1 trillion before the end of next year - this is rather olde, but I can't be bothered to search out new, credible, sources).
And I've found sites placing the "cost" of the war in the 3-5 trillion range. It's BS. You can't use "cost" past tense and include future projected costs for things associated with the war. It's more than a bit misleading IMO.
The total amount we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire "War on Terror" is only slightly more than we spend each and every single year on Medicaid. Let's not pretend that this was a massive cost, doubly so in the context of the amount of single year spending Obama has done in just the first portion of the first year of his term.
The cost in lives and money from Clinton's approach to terrorism was roughly equivalent to that of Bush's. The difference is that Bush's approach spends the money and lives fighting against terrorism, while Clinton's loses the lives to terrorist attacks on civilians and the money is spent cleaning up the messes created by those attacks. We can speculate as to which will result in a greater number of terrorist attacks going forward, but I think most people would rather fight than just spend their efforts licking their wounds after being victimized.
Most people anyway... Unfortunately, the Left in this country has gained massive political "bank" by being the party that stands up for victims, so I suppose a course of action that makes as many victims as possible makes a lot of sense to them. Sad, but seemingly true.