The cost of war

Much has been made of the "cost" of our war against terror. Using the cold calculus of the anti victory crowd the point at which the number of deaths in Iraq equals the number of deaths on 9/11 will be a "seminal" event. But why?

Part of the reason is simple denial. Here's the "logic" of denial: There is no threat. Since there is no threat no action need be taken relative to threat therefore anything done in the name of ending this non existent threat is a waste.

But I suspect that there is another dynamic here. Many of the people who use the cost/benefit analysis criticism (and there are millions of them) simply don't understand war.

A man who truly understood war was Dwight Eisenhower. As luck would have it I own three books written by Ike. In one, Crusade in Europe, Ike describes an exchange between a staff officer and a General. This was early in war immediately after the invasion of Northern Africa.

Brigadier General Lunsford E Oliver (nobody names their sons Lunsford anymore, such a pity) was attempting to comply with Ike's orders to support the British fighting Oran by bringing his command, Combat Command B (from the 1st Armored Division) to the front. He had decided that the local railroad could not handle the load and was attempting to secure "half-tracks" as transports.

Half tracks were a hermaphrodite vehicle with wheels in front and treads in the rear. Hence the name. This general's request was refused by a staff officer because this single troop movement would consume half the useful life on the vehicles!

In the book Ike explains that the staff officer was using a peace-time mentality, when stretching the useful life of assets was important because funding was iffy and stuff had to last. Ike described it this way " He had not yet accepted the esssential harshness of war; he did not realize that the word is synonymous with waste, nor did he understand that every positive action requires expenditure." (Crusade in Europe, 1948, doubleday, page 119)

Ike was a COMMANDER. It was his job to determine when the expenditure of assets would achieve the greatest results and "when this has been determined, then asstes must be spent with a lavish hand..." He gave Oliver his orders within five minutes.

it would seem to me that the strength of the committment to the war on terror can be measured by the amount of our resource we are willing to expend to win. This stands another favored anti victory meme on its head. Often we hear about "it's not really a war because not everbody is called to make sacrifice". This of course is liberal newspeak for "tax cuts for the rich" Yet we are contending with this threat at the same time that we are spending lavishly on domestic entittlement programs and building a space station. Can we honestly afford all this?

Which brings us to the next little bit of newspeak "We are spending our children's money on a foolish venture in Iraq". This particular meme combines the cost/benefit meme with the "children are the future" meme. Of course those who hurl this particular guilt grenade rarely consider what future our children would face should we fail to confront the evil of our time. The inheritance might just be liberty and prosperity, but it could also be an islam inspired nuclear winter.

Dawnfire, thanks for your response to anonymous.
Once again Tom, let me repeat: you're complaining about the actions in Iraq simply demonstrate your ignorance of the way wars are fought.
Let's stay with the Hitler analogy because you seem to dislike it so. Imagine yourself as you are now but living in november 1942. You would be complaining bitterly about our first major operation in the European theatre: Torch.
You would be saying: why are we invading North Africa when hitler is in Germany? How will spending our children's money (a particularly egregious lie btw) on a madcap adventure in Casablanca when Hitler is still running around in Bavaria?
I doubt you'd say these things too loudly since they'd likely get your butt kicked, but that's essentially your position.
There were at least three good reasons for torch and those reasons apply quite nicely to Iraq:
(1) there was an enemy in north Africa. I'm sure you've seen the movies about tobruk and all so I wont belabor that. Invading north africa, just like invading Iraq, ended a potential threat and reduced the enemy's options. You can argue about Saddam's role in all of this but the simple fact is he was an evil man who is now on trial. His public hanging will be a great event for the Iraqis he brutalized and starved. It will be a sad day for the forces of evil who relied on his tacit approval or outright support.
(2) The allies needed a strategic base for the invasion of europe. All they possessed at the time was gibraltar. The easter Med was in Axis hands. Gaining a foot hold in north Africa dramatically changed the landscape. So too in Iraq. We now possess an uncontestable base for military operations against any foe the choses to assault us. Niether Iran nor Syria could directly aid Hezbullah because they could not overcome our position in Iraq. As a direct result, lebanon has another chance at democracy and the Palestinians are suing for peace.
(3) The allies needed the practice. Our army was comprised of stone cold rookies. We had an officer corp that consisted of some old line warriors and many 90 day wonders. Getting this group into action improved over all performance and allowed the Allies to pick future commanders based on past performance in COMBAT. so too in Iraq. At this point the two national militaries with the most experience fighting arabs in their region are the IDF and the US. We have learned a massive amount about fighting in this region and terrain. We have learned and adapted both in our combat doctrines and our political policies. Such experience is invaluable in what will be a long long struggle.
This comment attempts a factual response to your emotional outburst. Dawnfire and I (and others) have provided cogent, thoughtful analysis while you have engaged in thoughtless school yard "name calling". My strong suspicion is that you simply have no other means of understanding and that's sad for you.
Fortunately for my country there are many many educated, thoughtful, serious men and women who are managing the effort in Iraq quite brilliantly. I am glad they rely on their knowledge and not on your emotion.

really good questions

Wow, Dom gets it right. I am in awe of his insight.
Let's try a thought experiment: Iraq is to Islam as Poland is to Europe.
Poland, from whence sprang my mother's parents, is a self sustaining agricultural society caught between the agressive central europeans and the aggressive russians. Although they are routinely invaded, they retain their strong sense of themselves.
I believe that this is what MO and Dom are saying. Iraq is the breadbasket, the region within the region that can sustain itself.
In a region that has seen wars of biblical proportions Iraq still stands. Is that something we should help these people remember?
The pope's words are very thought provoking. We're fooling around in a part of the world that is very, very significant.
I didn't miss the President's words today. he called it "the holy land". NOT to claim it as a christian, but to remind everybody that they are treading on sacred soil.
This is all so interesting. The faithful Vs the unfaithful.
On the one hand we have the radical muslims who proclaim that EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with them is unfaithful. Muslim, Jew, Christian or Bahai, either you are with the radicals or you are unfaithful.
On the other side is a western culture that has cast off it's belief in God. These unbelievers are secular Europeans, Angry leftist Americans and old line communists that seek to replace an old faith with their new faith.
I really wonder if a poll that compares the strength in the belief in God with a strength in a belief in the war against terror would show a statistical correlation.
What's the pope saying? Could it be that "they believe in their god, do you believe in yours?"
These are things about which we should think deeply. We are being asked some very important questions.
I don't church up often, but I went to Mass on Sunday to thank God for my son's return.
Thank you lord.
During the course of the ceremony the city of Tyre (Sour) was mentioned. I thought about the recent battles between Hezbullah and Israel and I thought "Holy shit, we're at it again"
I believe that our president was talking directly to devout muslims. I believe that he was saying that he understands the situation both currently and in its biblical sense.
Think about it. He called it the holy land. Show some respect Hamas, we have deep roots there too.
The messages of the last few days have been very intense. The muslims routinely use ancient terms when describing the modern world. Both the pope and Mr Bush used terms that are both historically accurate and heavily laden.
A message was sent, that much is clear.
VDH called the current situation a pause in the war. Many wars have had such a pause. The question for us AS A SPECIES is can we sustain this pause and achieve true peace?
Must we resume warfare? I firmly believe that the next move belongs to the Arab/muslims. Do you want peace or do you want war? We are prepared for either. We fervently wish for peace but we will fight to acheive it if we must.
But, back to the Pope's words. Is islam driving us back to our faith? Is is about ideologies? Or is it about that gray area between ideology and religion?
Can we protect our culture and discard the belief in God that spawned it?
We've got some homework. We need to think about this.