Matthew Yglesias takes a look at the cost of war versus the economic benefits on the home front and comes to the standard meme that the financial burden of war might have some good on the economy:
But the basic progressive analysis of the current economic situation is that higher short-term debt levels are socially beneficial, right? The story is that World War II—at least from the perspective of the American economy—wasn’t a huge economically wasteful use of resources. Sure it was more wasteful (in economic terms, obviously the “beating Hitler” benefits were quite real) than some other possible projects, but it still on balance was helpful in ending the Depression.
As Yglesias wraps up his post, he discovers this article in The New York Times that looks at President Obama’s upcoming Afghanistan decision and how paying for it all will come into play.
So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.
So as President Obama searches for an endgame in Afghanistan — insert snide comment here that there has never been an endgame for Afghanistan —, not only will the future of the Afghan government and the lives of our troops factor into Obama’s decision, but so will cold, hard cash.