A second look at the numbers shows another story underneath. In 2008, the peak year so far of war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, the costs amounted to only 1.2 percent of America’s gross domestic product. During the peak year of spending on World War II, 1945, the costs came to nearly 36 percent of G.D.P.
The reason is the immense growth, and seemingly limitless credit, of the United States economy over the last 65 years, as compared to the sacrifice and unity required to wring $4 trillion from a much smaller economy to wage the earlier war. To some historians, the difference is troubling.
Well, they get the concept that war is relatively cheaper today than in the past, given our much larger economy to support the war, but what do they make of it?
“The army is at war, but the country is not,” said David M. Kennedy, the Stanford University historian. “We have managed to create and field an armed force that can engage in very, very lethal warfare without the society in whose name it fights breaking a sweat.” The result, he said, is “a moral hazard for the political leadership to resort to force in the knowledge that civil society will not be deeply disturbed.”
Ah, there you go. He wants our society to be disturbed. That really is the heart of the problem from his point of view: we haven't burdened the society to the point that we are so disturbed that we end the war before achieving victory. And what is the main factor for "breaking a sweat"? Well, taxing us:
A corollary is that taxes have not been raised to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan — the first time that has happened in an American war since the Revolution, when there was not yet a country to impose them. Rightly or wrongly, that has further cut American civilians off from the two wars on the opposite side of the world.
Before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, “Americans were called upon by their leaders to pay higher taxes during a war, and grumbling or not grumbling, they did it,” said Robert D. Hormats, the under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs and the author of “The Price of Liberty: Paying for America’s Wars.”
Funny, I seem to recall one of the complaints about Vietnam is that we didn't raise taxes to fight that war. And funny, I don't recall anyone urging us to shut down the civilian economy to support the war effort like we did in World War II. No, the only sacrifice is to burden the public with higher taxes even if we don't need to do that.
But more to the point of the burden of war and taxation, look at World War II versus Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, we spent 1.2% of our GDP on those campaigns. The peak burden for World War II was nearly 36%. Gosh, why would we have to borrow money for waging World War II yet not borrow it for Iraq and Afghanistan? Wow. That's a mystery. Excuse me while I go out and get a mortgage to buy a TV. After all, I got one of those mortgages to buy my home. Obviously I should use that tool for all my buying needs.
Face it, we're not broke because of the costs of war or defense. We're broke because of the costs of everything else.
Oh, and one more bit of annoyance:
A last story in the numbers: A quick calculation shows that the United States has been at war for 47 of its 230 years, or 20 percent of its history. Put another way, Americans have been at war one year out of every five.
“You know, it’s a surprise to me that it’s that high,” said Mr. Daggett, who has focused on the cost, not length, of wars. “You think of war as not being the usual state.”
Hmm. Twenty percent of time is the usual state? I'd say that the peace side of the ledger at 80% does indeed indicate that war is not the usual state for us. I mean, I spend about 30% of my life asleep yet somehow I think of being awake as my usual state.
Wake me when these guys get a clue.
