Originally Posted by
Overland
Zack,
This is going to sound quite flip, and I'm sure I stand the chance of being roundly criticized (and maybe justifiably so), but I am always wary of anyone who measures the cost of our involvement in "blood". Not that the sacrifice of every individual Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman isn't painful, but I'm always put off by an argument that rests its laurels on the morally superior position afforded by stating, "I don't want more of them to die." Welcome to the club. I can't think of a single rational, decent person who wants more servicemen and women to die.
However, the measure is at best naive and at worst intellectually arrogant. We currently field an all-volunteer force that is dedicated to performing the mission at hand. Individual servicemembers are willing to risk their lives for a variety of reasons (from the professional to the personal), but every single one of them made the choice to be where they are. Attempting to use their "blood" as a bargaining chip in any manner (pro- or anti-war) other than what they intend is unacceptable. So let's focus on the economic aspect of the debate on "cost" as we could not possibly provide the attention due to the individual sacrifices made and the motivations behind them.
As for the choice of the field of battle and weapons employed, I should have been more explicit. Let's use a quick example to highlight the point I'm attempting to make. Pre-9/11 most of our anti-terrorism/force protection efforts focused on the hardening of government and military installations, with little or inadequate attention being paid to our civilian infrastructure. The result? Our enemy found the gaps in our defenses and exploited them to attack us. It's a friction I'm sure everyone is familiar with-- you can try to defend everything all of the time, but eventually the enemy is going to find a way around your defenses and use a novel method to attack you.
Thus, we're basically allowing the enemy the room and time to decide when, where and how to attack the United States. Placing the US on the permanent defensive (or at least until our adversary decides it is done attacking us) should not sit well with anyone. In terms of cost, the constant revamping of our defenses and wasted money for unnecessary or ineffective measures (read that: TSA) could drain our treasury just as completely as fixing the problem at its source. Even further, such a defensive mindset opens possibilities for peer competitors, not just our enemies.
Bookmarks