EXCELLENT POINT!!!
When you compare the current situation to the way we were fighting millions of enemies on two fronts, today's expenditures become even more outrageous! If it was less than $5 trillion for WWII (heck, estimates go as low as $1.6 trillion, corrected for inflation), and Robert A. Sunshine's estimates are correct for the current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will have spent about a third or more in Iraq/Afghanistan as we spent to send millions of Americans to defeat our advanced and numerous enemies in WWII.
I'm not complaining about the upgrades to equipment and giving our troops good pay and benefits and gear, but I'm suggesting that we have thrown away a lot of money to corruption, etc. Plus, it should be noted that Afghanistan isn't the drain -- Iraq is.
The costs to military families has been huge. The cost to our military recruitment has been dramatic. The costs per capita have been quite substantial.
Each American family probably would rather have $130/month than have us in Iraq (again, Afghanistan is minor compared to Iraq). Ask an average American if he'd rather have us in Iraq or get a check for $10,000 for his family, and I think most would choose the latter.
Of course, neoconsocialists who like the big-government approach would rather the Feds spend our money, but I, personally (as a conservative), think that it would have been better for the government to take $10,000 less per family. $1 trillion is a bit greater than the $50-$200 billion price tag we were told at the outset, and I think that the American people have every right to question the Administration's handling of the matter.
I would choose the former. Ten grand won't do me any good if I'm dead, or the economy is shot because Chicago got nuked.
Ten thousand dollars, while a tidy sum of money, is completely worthless if a family member is roasted alive in a burning skyscraper or jetliner (see 9/11 WTC and Pentagon attacks).
What Americans pay, in terms of defense, to ensure our collective domestic security is...a bargain, considering that every day, our soldiers and Marines pay a much steeper price and, in some cases, the ultimate price.
So, to answer that question: I would rather that we finish the war in Iraq. Ten thousand dollars from the Federals is worthless to me if we run away from Iraq: surrender such as the Democrats propose effectively wastes the money that we have poured into Iraq, dishonors the tremendous sacrifice made by our armed forces and their families, and invites more attacks on American soil by terrorists (and the foreign States that sponsor and encourage them).
Wouldn't it be wonderful if these really were our choices? Suppose we just pull out and come home? Then what? I'm sure these radicals will just go about minding their own business and leave us alone. (sarcasm)
If you believe this, you're deluding yourself. Radical Islam is looking for their own country--preferably with nukes. Iraq is stragetic and necessary. We must be able to defend ourselves from Iran and now Pakistan and their nukes are thrown into the mix.
Plus, it should be noted that Afghanistan isn’t the drain — Iraq is.
It should also be noted Saddam no longer fires at our pilots, like he did for 8 years under Mr. Clinton, a lousy commander who did little to nothing, like Blackhawk Down in Somalia, to protect Troops being attacked. Clinton, 8 years of Presidential Quackery. Satisfaction of getting even with Saddam, priceless.