<p>
</p>
<p>While I respect the complexity of your analysis, I do actually believe its aim to be a little too vague for this argument.
If the total expenditure total you’ve come up with were in relation primarily to the Iraq War, I’d probably agree with you. I suspect(but cannot precise) that were the costs for the conflict in Afghanistan removed, the vast majority of that large sum would still be around, and we would probably agree that said sum could have been spent more wisely.</p>
<p>That being said, since no clear differentiation is made here, I cannot honestly say that I believe the entirety of that sum to have been wasted. The conflict in Afghanistan was necessary. Leaving al-qaeda entirely alone(as had been largely done prior to 2001 after prior Al-Qaeda attacks) was not an option.
Granted, I believe the large scale diversion of resources to Iraq(where the real threat was not actually located) did take away from our mission in Afghanistan, and in fact may still be preventing us from fully realizing the completion of said mission. Simply not bothering, however, was not feasible given the fact that we are faced with people who in many cases cannot be reasoned with and have nothing to lose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In absolute fairness, DeadMonkey, I don’t see this as a particularly strong argument. These are soldiers who knowingly sign up to serve with full knowledge of the nature of conflict. War is generally unpleasant-it always has been, and likely always will be. This is why, generally, decisions regarding the waging of conflicts both past and present have been weighed heavily by most(sane) world leaders.
These soldiers are fully aware of this fact. Thus, I can’t say that your phrasing of the phenomenon constitutes an entirely accurate reflection of their situation during deployment. Yes, they suffer, but they choose to make that sacrifice. This is why they’re generally respected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a hell of a trade-off…that is, if you make the assumption that all of the money was spent unwisely and nothing necessary or beneficial was gained from it. Perhaps that was the case(at least for the most part) in Iraq. But when you consider truly vital conflicts(of which there have been, currently are, and likely will be many in the future), the financial cost is more than worth it.</p>
<p>Again, in order to really quantify the magnitude of this trade off, more detail regarding the various conflicts and the spending put forth for each one would be needed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We both agree on the protection of future generations. Our disagreement, I believe, lies in how to do it.
I don’t believe that we will ever completely be able to prevent some of our young men and women from suffering tragedy overseas in the midst of conflict. Conflicts will rear their head for as long as we exist, and some people will sacrifice in order to stand up and ensure that we come through it ok. Unfortunately, some will make the ultimate sacrifice in the process, and it will indeed be tragic…but sadly, necessary for the protection of the greater good.</p>