The list of things we "missed" around the world is ridiculous. We didn't miss them. But we did have to shield ourselves from the terrorists actually attacking us. Nor do I see our supposed distraction as hurting us in our relations with any of the countries the author notes. I seriously doubt that we missed a chance to "solve" our immigration problem by an agreement with Mexico unless just legalizing what they were doing counts as a solution.
Further, saying we got closer to authoritarian Arab regimes misses the point that Bush did try to direct his freedom agenda at even our allies (like Egypt) but foreign policy "realists" complained so bitterly that he backed off in his second term. How is that an error of 9/11 response rather than an error caused by political opportunism by his political opponents?
And this is the real kicker:
Finally, we stopped investing in our own infrastructure—think what $3 trillion could have done for roads, research, education, or even private investment, if a part of that sum had just been left in taxpayers' pockets—and we missed the chance to rethink our national energy policy.
One, we've been missing chances to change our energy policies since 1973. Why would the last decade have been different? And why is a gas tax considered the height of wise energy policy? Wouldn't expanding domestic energy production be wiser?
And all because we spend $300 billion per year on terror related spending according to the author. We cut taxes and that caused our fiscal problem, she says.
One, our federal tax revenue from 2001 to 2008 did not collapse from federal tax cuts. whether you want to talk current or constant dollars, federal revenue increased in that period. Nice try.
But maybe our defense spending is crushing our economy? Again, nice try:
Huh. As a burden on our economy, the last decade did see an increase. But it still does not reflect a burden higher than our Cold War history of spending. And when you consider we'd have had to replace weaponry getting old during our post-Cold War "peace dividend" period when we slashed weapons purchases to live off what we built in the last decade of the Cold War, we'd have likely seen spending increases anyway. The fact is, our spending in the War on Terror pales in comparison to spending peaks for the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.
Oh, and how does the author defend her assumption that if we hadn't spent money on the war on terror we'd have left even a part of that money in private hands to spend on those good things she thinks would have prevented our current financial problems? Has she not paid attention to Congress for the past 50 years? And since she wanted a gasoline tax, wouldn't other taxes have needed to be cut to put some of that money in private hands?
So thank you for playing "who screwed up our national finances." We have lovely parting gifts--paid for by the federal government, of course. Which should lead in nicely to what caused the spending problem we have today.
Our country has great advantages that should let us rebound if we stop stifling our economy. Blaming our policy of actually defending ourselves for that political decision to cripple our economy is ridiculous.
UPDATE: Oh, and let me repeat that I don't think the military aspects of the Long War are even the most important for ultimeate victory--although they are the most immediate task. And as we seek that much-coveted nuance about our struggle after a decade of fighting, let's not forget that our jihadi enemies and their enablers are simply evil (tip to Instapundit). Some people really do just need to be killed.
UPDATE: Oh, and I won't deny that cutting spending too much in recession is counter-productive. But the cutters have been suckered by the spenders who always renege on their promise to cut spending later if only taxes are raised now. So my emphasis on spending excesses as the source of our financial problems is absolutely correct, even if the steps to spending cuts are less straightforward than cutting spending now. Further, ss the summer debates show, focusing on the spending problem won't be a problem since it isn't easy to cut spending and I simply don't believe we will slash spending.
UPDATE: Krauthammer has my six on the burden of defense spending on the war on terror.
