COMMUNITY COMMENT: War getting too cheap for comfort

On July 25, the New York Times published a report about war getting cheaper for the U.S. to wage since World War II in terms of percent of Gross National Product. The article was disturbing.

In World War II, the U.S. put 16 million soldiers into uniform and spent $4.1 trillion — or 36 percent of the GNP.

We have deployed 2.1 million military members and spent $1.15 trillion on Iraq, Afghanistan and post-9/11 actions, representing only 1.2 percent of the GNP. Figures quoted are through 2008.

The cost per soldier fielded has gone up from $67,000 in World War II to $1.1 million in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not had any tax increases to support the war efforts in the latter two countries.

Thus, except for the friends and relatives of the soldiers, the American public is experiencing less and less of the effects of war.

The big problem with this is that in the future if there is less effect on the American public, our government may feel more comfortable engaging in military actions in other areas of the world.

Consider what may occur as the world runs out of renewable resources to power economies, including America's. Our government may feel inclined to obtain from others what we don't have but believe we need.

I believe this already happened in Iraq. Six wars were fought on Iraqi soil in the 20th century. The first three were initiated by the British and the last two by Americans.

These all seem to have been fought for access to cheap oil. The fourth was initiated by the Iraqis when they invaded Iran.

The root cause of the six actions was a desire to obtain a source of cheap energy Is this is the best energy policy the richest country in the world can develop?

If war becomes cheap enough, people may think about taking on the Chinese, the Russians and Iranians all at once.

We might even settle our grievances with France and metaphorically bop the British on the nose for burning the White House during the War of 1812. (This is a joke, folks and that way lies madness but I think some patriots may think it is a good idea.)

The problem with this cost of war calculation is that it leaves out the indescribable hardship inflicted on noncombatant citizens of countries under attack: The Nazi Holocaust against the Jews, gypsies, etc.; the casualties inflicted by the Germans against the Russian citizens during Operation Barbarossa; the casualties inflicted by the Russians on German citizens during the drive to Berlin; the casualties in Manchuria inflicted by the Japanese during the prelude to the war; the casualties of the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo; and of course the casualties of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, each of these actions were justified by rationales put forth by the various governments, but in America the citizens have the right to provide input before such actions are deemed necessary by decision makers.  

One last comment about World War II: After the Great Depression, Roosevelt managed to rouse the American populace from its lethargy by providing jobs for out-of-work men.

This set up the national confidence needed to mobilize the nation for a war on two fronts against the Axis powers. As a result, America built an economic powerhouse dedicated to wartime effort.

After V-J Day, this powerhouse was oriented to peaceful purposes, which fueled our remarkable economic recovery during the 1950s.

I do not think most citizens would consider this to be good economic policy today for a Christian country. However, I fear some people in our government may have exactly that plan in mind.

What we really need is an energy policy to wean us off nonrenewable fossil fuels. We also have to figure out how to treat the other countries as independent, but valuable allies in the struggle for viability.

But this would take long-term strategic planning and vision, which are not America's strong suits.

Hardin Rathgeber is a resident of Evansville. 


  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 9

qwerty writes:

i cant find the article you refer to, but i question these numbers and question the conclusion that war is cheap. 1.15 trillion is not 1.2% of gnp, they must be using the annual cost. gnp in 2008 was 14 trillion. to spin it another way, the annual budget deficit in 2008 was ONLY 400 billion, so the cost of war was 3 times the deficit for that year. the 2010 deficit is 1.3 trillion, a number comparable to the cost of war in this decade. plus i dont think this counts the cost of massive embassies, the medical cost of horrific lifelong injuries, the loss of life, the time that government employees not directly employed by the military spend on the problem. i think it would be a lot easier to tell a story that the official budget is just the tip of the iceberg. nevertheless a trillion is not a trifle. its 7% of the gnp.

lolonlyinevansville (Inactive) writes:

THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSEL FUELS. Just that simple and yes wars are conducted over fuel.

The United States should and will someday make military service mandatory where EVERYONE must serve... hopeful oneday....

blue2golf writes:

An appalling letter. Our actions in war are not to be compared to those taken by tyrants as just another "rationale." Certain of his "facts" are wrong and are presented in the wrong context. It is no surprise the inspiration of this lunacy would be the New York Times.

Read a book, Mr. Rathgeber, then write your letters.

qwerty writes:

brutal, just looking at the numbers,he gave two numbers, said one was a 1.2% of the other, and i said, no, you must be breaking down the total cost into a yearly number, which was not given, and it would vary from year to year. pretty confusing way to present a case.

comparing anything to gnp is bound to make it look small, the entire output of the u.s. is a pretty big number. why not compare the war cost to the tax revenues or the deficit? no spin there.

gremlin writes:

in response to lolonlyinevansville:



nope not one replacement for "FOSSEL FUELS" we will never do that. not in a million years. next week will due. nasa even has a plan for making fuel on mars of all the places but obama scrubed it. they were testing it out, would work on mars earth or in space. now its on the shelf. go o





radioriot#161981 writes:

A Trillion dollars is still a Trillion Dollars, and somebody has to pay for it.

qwerty writes:

the distance between sun and earth is a little less than a half trillion FEET. since a dollar is 6 inches, you could lay a trillion dollars end to end between earth and sun.

the annual military budget is around 600 billion

bush's last deficit was supposed to be 480 billion.

total tax revenues for 2009 supposed to be 2.1 trillion.

not true that a trillion dollars is so cheap we might be tempted to buy two.

ron paul, the only politician telling the truth in this area, imo.

qwerty writes:

Nations identify themselves by their war experience. The U.S. until ww2 identified itself largely by the principles in the constitution, the rule of law, the rights of the individual, separation and limitation of power. But since ww2 the military never stood down. What happened the last 10 years doesn't make much sense. Why the perpetrators of 911 still have not been caught. Why we made war in Iraq. Why the new president continued the policy of the old president and the American people who voted for a change got nothing. When you are not told the truth, its hard to figure out what is going on.

whywhywhy writes:

Great letter! As long as huge corporations run DC we will continue on our coal dust and oily path. Their are people and organizations that profit from war, and the industrial military complex. This is why our military is so large and we have thousands of troops and bases around the world to keep the boogey man at bay and the country poor. Weapons of mass destruction and Halliburton are joined at the hip.
