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.
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.
posted by skipsailing | 10:25 AM
4 Comments:
Skip,
3rd reader. Me and Mr. Davies. And, if you consider proof-reading, you can up the count, no?
Keep up the good fight.
What many people do not realize also is in addition to the cost of going to war in Iraq, there also would have been a cost of *Not* going to war in Iraq. The risk of having a second violent country in the Muddle East striving for nuclear weapons while bribing Europe into dropping sanctions and carrying out a continuing war of words and deeds against the U.S. is frightening indeed. Particularly when Iraq had full production capacity for chemical weapons, and contacts with terror organizations, two facts that are well established without fear of contradiction.
The cost of sending the troops and equipment over=1x10¹°
The cost of paying for the war effort=8x10¹°
The cost of preventing another attack=Priceless
Skip said:
"Here's the "logic" of denial: There is no threat."
With all due respect, you've misread those you disagree with. No one is saying there is no threat. We disagree with how we combat the threat.
We believe that there is a much greater threat (and cost associated therewith) to the notion of pre-emptive warring and taking actions that result in the deaths of innocents than there are associated with the terrorists themselves. There is the threat that we will grow and encourage terrorism until it is unmanageable, this much has been validated by recent intelligence reports.
As the "man who truly understood war" said, "There is only one solution for our generation: It is the return to a life based on Christ's Sermon on the Mount."
And he went on to say:
"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative."
Eisenhower DID understand war, and hated "war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
And he understood that ultimately, there are better ways to bring peace and security.
Post a Comment
<< Home