… as a free war.”
Or so says reader Ed Whitney.
Interesting point. Once you’re at war, of course, dollar cost properly has very little weight compared with winning and avoiding casualties. But why does it seem reasonable to many conservatives and libertarians to drop a few hundred billion dollars on Iraq, when spending the same money to support Russia’s transition to democracy or Africa’s escape from grinding poverty would have been a complete political non-starter? For that matter, if the money we’ve spent turning Iraq into a hellhole had simply been divided up and handed out in cash to every Iraqi, we’d doubtless be more popular and the country much more peaceful.
Um, because foreign aid is liberal, sissy stuff, and war is super cool and glorious?
And it wouldn’t have have allowed Bush to wank around the world for three years mouthing off about installing democracy in the middle east (prior to giving up and installing the second coming of Saddam Hussein, which, according to today’s LA Times is apparently the latest plan).
Many of us suggested such an idea, when we first entered Afghanistan, when Iraq was just a bulge in Rummy’s pants. Does anyone recall the “Bomb them with butter” campaign, from Tom Friedman, I think…and to put it all in another perspective, auto accidents kill lots more americans than 911 did, but we aren’t bombing Chevrolet factories and we aren’t spending billions on highway and automobile safety, are we? Is it too late to impeach ‘em all? I guess we’ll see in a couple of weeks. And I hear from Molly Ivins that Sad ol’ Dam’s trial results are to be announced two days before the election day….hmmmm…mikey