Deficits and the War on Terror

I generally like John Aziz's blog. I don't always agree, but he never fails to provoke thought. 

http://azizonomics.com/2012/03/30/the-economics-of-the-war-on-terror/

I thought this post was pretty good in terms of that. We spend a lot of time in the United States talking about debt, and deficits in terms of whose fault it is - politically speaking. That's one problem with out political culture; it's D said R said tunnel vision passing for political coverage when in fact the decisions that are made have to be judged in longer terms than the next election or poll.

When it comes to the War on Terror, a lot was spent. The Dept of Homeland security is a huge bureaucracy. The Iraq Invasion, and subsequent occupation was exclusively funded through supplemental bills meaning all deficits. No taxes were part of those bills. The Afghanistan operations were funded likewise. This is not to say the deficit is therefore the fault of President Bush. The question as to whether this additional deficit was worth it is the main thrust in the linked post. I do quite agree that given the state of affairs in Afghanistan, with a resurgent Taliban in Pakistan, and in Afghanistan we have had questionable success in establishing a friendly government in Afghanistan. President Karzai is quite unpopular due mainly to corruption in his government, and the view that he's a puppet of the United States. "Winning the peace" as General Patreus put it has proven difficult in that region of the world. Over in Iraq, while Hussein is long gone we can hardly say that the current leadership there is friendly toward us, and our interests.